HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.3 Prezoning and Annexation Camp Parks AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 23 , 1985
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING
PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning
and Annexation (Camp Parks Area) to
prezone and annex approximately 2 , 700
acres of public lands generally located
north of I-580 and west of Tassajara
Road:
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibits :
A. Draft Resolution adopting
environmental documents .
B . Draft Resolution Approving and
Establishing findings and General
Provisions for Agricultural and
Planned Development Industrial
Prezoning.
C. Draft Ordinance Amending Zoning
Ordinance .
D. Draft Resolution regarding Property
Tax Revenue.
E. Draft Resolution regarding Filing
Annexation Application with LAFCO.
Background Attachments :
1 . Location Map.
2 . June 17 , 1985 , Planning Commission
Staff Report with comments on the
environmental document and Staff
responses attached.
3 . March 11 , 1985 , City Council Agenda
Statement with comments from
property owners attached.
4 . July 31, 1985 Memo referencing:
Zoning Contracts-County Property.
5 . Memorandum from City Manager
regarding Fiscal Impact Analysis .
6 . Fiscal Impact Report prepared by
Gruen and Gruen Associates .
RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation.
2 . Take testimony from the public.
3 . Question Staff and the public.
4 . Close public hearing and
deliberate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM N0. ,,5-t3 COPIES TO:
Propery Owners
5 . Adopt resolution regarding
environmental documents .
6 . Adopt Resolution Approving and
Establishing Findings and General
Provisions for Agricultural and
Planned Development Industrial
Prezoning.
7 . Waive reading and introduce
ordinance amending Zoning
Ordinance.
8 . Adopt resolution regarding property
tax revenue.
9 . Adopt resolution regarding filing
of LAFCO annexation application.
10 . Direct Staff to prepare a letter to
Dublin San Ramon Service District
requesting it ' s support of the
annexation.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The annexation of these parcels would have a positive fiscal
impact on the City. ( See attached Fiscal Impact Memorandum
and Report )
DESCRIPTION:
I . BACKGROUND
On October 8 , 1984 , the City Council directed Staff to
proceed with the annexation of the Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area (Camp Parks ) and Tassajara Creek Regional
Park . The Staff contacted the property owners in the area
and received varying responses .
On March 11, 1985 , the City Council expanded the annexation
proposal to include all publicly owned land to the east of
the City. The City Council determined that the consolidated
proposal would provide a better forum for discussing road
way access to the east and the potential effects of Alameda
County' s development plans on the City ' s annexation of the
area . Staff proceeded with the environmental review,
prezoning, services and financial plan, and other annexation
requirements.
On June 17 , 1985 , the Planning Commission recommended that
the environmental documents be adopted, and that the
prezoning and annexation applications be approved. With the
assistance of Gruen and Gruen Associates , the services and
financial plan has been drafted .
II ISSUES
The annexation involves three basic issues : environmental
review; prezoning; and services and financial plan.
A. Environmental Review:
Staff prepared an Initial Study and proposed that the
environmental documents prepared for the General Plan,
along with responses to comments on the prezoning and
annexation, be used as the environmental documents for
the proposal .
The General Plan environmental documents include the
Draft EIR ( Environmental Impact Report ) , responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, supplemental EIR, responses
to comments on the supplemental EIR, and statement of
overriding considerations .
ABAG, MTC, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District requested more detailed analysis than
contained in the General Plan environmental documents .
Bart requested that, if a station site is adopted in
the area, an overlay zone be developed. These agency
comments and Staff ' s specific responses are attached
( see Attachment 2 ) .
Staff finds that the General Plan environmental
documents are as complete and provide as much analysis
as is feasible or warranted at this time. No physical
development projects are being proposed or approved as
part of this prezoning and annexation. When more
defined plans or specific development projects are
proposed, the more detailed information requested by
the agencies should be considered as part of those
projects ' environmental reviews . Staff recommends that
the General Plan environmental documents, along with
responses to comments on the prezoning and annexation,
be found to be complete and adequate for this project
in compliance with CEQA ( California Environmental
Quality Act ) .
B . PREZONING
When the City Council initiated the prezoning of the
area, it considered various prezoning options . The
City Council initiated the process with a ) the General
Plan designated Public Lands area prezoned to
Agricultural District and b) the General Plan
designated industrial areas prezoned to Planned
Development-Industrial District with new development
projects to be processed as a Planned Development
Rezoning consistent with the General Plan descriptions .
The Planning Commission reviewed the prezoning options,
found that the prezoning to Agricultural District and
Planned Development-Industrial District was
appropriate, and recommended approval .
Staff notes that the proposed prezoning would require a
new public land use to secure a Conditional Use Permit .
However , the County retains ownership of its property,
and these uses would be exempt from City building and
zoning ordinances ( see Attachment 4 ) .
C. SERVICES AND FINANCIAL PLAN
See City Manager ' s memorandum.
III RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the
environmental documents and approval of the prezoning and
annexation application . The service and financial plan did
not need Planning Commission action.
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the
Planning Commission recommendations and take the following
actions :
1 ) Adopt the resolution adopting the environmental
documents ( Exhibit A) .
2 ) Adopt the resolution regarding the Agricultural
and Planned Development-Industrial Prezoning
( Exhibit B) .
3 ) Waive reading and introduce the ordinance amending
the Zoning Ordinance ( Exhibit C) .
4 ) Adopt the resolution regarding property tax
revenue ( Exhibit D) .
5 ) Adopt the resolution regarding filing the LAFCO
annexation application ( Exhibit E)
6 ) Direct Staff to prepare a letter to Dublin San
Ramon Services District requesting it ' s support of
the annexation.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, (FINAL AND
DRAFT EIRS, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR, SUPPLEMENT TO
THE EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE EIR)
ALONG WITH THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
OF THE PREZONING AND ANNEXATION PROPOSAL, AS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR PA 85-018 DUBLIN PUBLIC LANDS
PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 8 , 1984 and March
11, 1985 initiated the prezoning and annexation of approximately
2700 acres of publicly-owned properties generally east of
Dougherty Road and Southern Pacific Right of Way; west of
Tassajara Road; north of I-580 ; and south of Contra Costa County
line as described in PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and
Annexation Application; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that certain projects be
reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents
be prepared; and
WHEREAS, various environmental documents were prepared
for the Dublin General Plan; specifically, a Final Environmental
Impact Report which consisted of the Draft EIR, responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, supplemental EIR, responses to comments
on the supplemental EIR, and statement of overriding
considerations; and
WHEREAS, on 3/25/85 , the City published a notice which
described the project and .stated it planned to use the
environmental documents prepared for the General Plan at the
environmental documents for the prezoning annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City also sent this notice to affected
agencies, and individuals ; and
WHEREAS, said agencies and individuals were given 45
days to respond to said notice; and
WHEREAS, said notice identified the following
significant environmental impacts; increased traffic, degradation
of air quality, loss of agricultural and grazing land and loss of
open space; and
WHEREAS,. the City received several letters from
affected agencies regarding said environmental review; and
WHEREAS, Staff prepared responses to said letters; and
WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending that
the environmental documents prepared for the General Plan, along
with the responses to comments on the environmental review of the
prezoning and annexation, will adequately serve as the
environmental documents for this project ;
WHEREAS, proper notice of said environmental review was
given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on June 17 , 1985 did
review and recommend adoption of the environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review and consider said
environmental documents at a public hearing on September 23 , 1985 ;
and
DP -,83-20 EXHIBIT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council
does hereby find that :
1 ) The significant environmental impacts resulting from this
proposal are: increased traffic, degradation of air quality, loss
of agricultural and grazing land and loss of open space;
2 ) The statement of overriding considerations adopted by the
City Council on 2/11/85 for the General Plan can adequately serve
as the statement of overriding considerations for this project ;
3 ) The responses to comments adequately address the issues which
were raised by affected agencies ;
4 ) The environmental documents prepared on the General Plan and
the responses to comments on the environmental review for the
prezoning and annexation have been completed in compliance of
CEQA;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
adopt the environmental documents prepared for the General Plan,
( Final & Draft EIR' s, Responses to comments on the Draft EIR,
Supplement to the EIR, & Responses to comments on the Supplement
to the EIR) , along with the responses to comments on the
environmental review for the prezoning and annexation, as the
environmental documents for this project .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
1985 .
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DP 83-20
' R
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR PA 85-018 DUBLIN
PUBLIC LANDS PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 8 , 1984 and" March
11, 1985 initiated the prezoning and annexation of approximately
2700 acres of publicly-owned properties generally east of
Dougherty Road and Southern Pacific Right of Way; west of
Tassajara Road; north of I-580 ; and south of Contra Costa County
line as described in PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and
Annexation Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on said prezoning and annexation on June 17 , 1985 and
recommended approval and establishment of findings and general
provisions concerning PA 85-018 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on
said application on September 23 , 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given
in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending
specific prezoning designations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony as herein set forth;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that :
1 ) the environmental documents prepared for the General Plan,
along with the responses to comments on the environmental
review for the prezoning and annexation, will adequately
serve -as the environmental documents for this project; and
2 ) The prezoning designations are consistent with the General
Plan; and
3 ) . The prezoning is appropriate for the subject properties in
terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves a )
the prezoning of the Public Lands area identified in the General
Plan (approximately 2100 acres ) to an A (Agricultural) District
and b) the prezoning of the Business Park/Industrial and Business
Park Industrial Low Coverage areas to a PD (Planned Development )-
Industrial District . The PD-Industrial area shall be governed by
the following general provisions :
1 ) All new development projects in the Business Park Industrial
and Business Park Industrial; Low Coverage areas shall be
processed as a new PD rezoning.
2 ) In the Business Park/Industrial area (approximately 400
acres ) new development shall conform to the General Plan
description which states :
"Uses are non-retail busineses ( research, limited
manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative
offices ) that do not involve heavy trucking or generate
nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses . Residential
uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor
DP 83-20 '�' *0
:. r
area to site area (FAR) are contolled by parking and
landscaping requirements and typically result in . 35 to . 40
FAR' s . Examples : Clark Avenue; Sierra Court . "
3 ) In the Business Park Industrial/Low Coverage area
(approximately 200 acres) new development shall conform to
the General Plan description which states :
"This classification is intended to provide a campus-like
setting with open plazas and landscaped pedestrian amenities
for the uses described in the Business Park/Industrial
classification for the Primary Planning Area and to allow
retail uses to serve businesses and residents . Maximum floor
area ratio (building floor area as percent of lot area) to be
determined by zoning regulations should be between . 25 and
. 37 . "
4 ) In both Business Park Industrial areas, new public land
uses shall require a Conditional Use Permit .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
, 1985 .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DP 83-20
��•-0.i \ .�
�� tJORTf�
C�S�P
\' ui
NORTH
U.S. GOVERNMENT l`
DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE q I ` ' '1 °x
PRO)E T SITE �.� ..1
CAMP PARKS
RESERVE TRAINING AREA VICINITY MAP
EAST BAY
REGIONAL PARK
1
(j U.S. DEPT.
OF JUSTICE
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY LAND
AU.S. NAT. AERONAUTICS SANTA RITA REHABILITATION CENTER Ink
& SPACE ADM.
So
(JT
'P
U.S. GOVERNMENT I
,"ttT
e11G1"L[111H0
otsw"te SANTINA & ,�^Ytrl"� DUBLIN PUBLIC LANDS ANNEXATION „ , ,ectr,
°^••"' �'_.'� THOMPSON wc. we No.
t"tt^te, ATTACHMENT —1
r^0,.1"04. 1060 O.k G....R..d.C--d.Cd11o1N. •IS18 161,1 arox00. T.L.,]e,635.m1n. CALIFORNIA
DUBLIN pHINTEO
r.ea R0, By oat ntvulo",
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED. TO
THE EAST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows :
Section 1 : Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance
Code is hereby amended in the following manner :
The Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ( Camp Parks ) (APN 946-15-
1-5 ) , the U. S . Department of Justice property and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration property located within APN
946-15-1-5 , the U.S . Department of Air Force property (946-15-1-
6 ) , the East Bay Regional Park District property ( 946-15-1-7 ) and
the northerly 320+ acres of the Alameda County property ( 946-15-
1-4 ) is hereby prezoned to an Agricultural District . The
southern portion of Alameda County property and the U. S.
Government parcel ( 946-15-2 ) are hereby prezoned to a PD/Business
Park Industrial District ( 400+ acres ) and a PD/Business Park
Industrial : Low Coverage District ( 200+ acres) .
Exhibit B, Findings and General Provisions concerning PA 85-018
on file in the Dublin Planning Department is hereby adopted as
the regulations for the use, improvement and maintenance of the
property within this District upon annexation to the City.
A map of the area is as follows :
' . • !Tassalare Creek t
• •/ Regional Park `
• Pnrks Reserve • a
•forces Training • •��(� a
• Area •.♦ . • • • ♦ • i
O •. •.• ♦ Sania Rita
a. • • l
• • RehabiliWhOn Cenler
Z . ♦ ••
•
Q ♦ • • '
Business Park/Industrial:Low Coverage i
Business Park/Indusbial
p t mI• IGL .
I I Public Lends
Section 2 : This ordinance shall take effect and - be
enforced ( 30 ) days from and after its passage. Before the
expiration of ( 15 ) days after its passage it shall be published
� rr,
once with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against
the same and in the Tri-Valley Herald a newspaper published in
Alameda County and available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN ON THIS TH DAY OF , 1985 ..
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--=--------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEING TO AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE CONCERNING
PA 85-018 DUBLIN PURBLIC LANDS PREZONING AND
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 8 , 1984 and March
11, 1985 initiated the prezoning and annexation of approximately
2700 acres of publicly-owned properties generally east of
Dougherty Road and Southern Pacific Right of Way; west of
Tassajara Road; north of I-580 ; and south of Contra Costa County
line as described in PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and
Annexation Application; and
WHEREAS, section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
(AB 8 ) provides, among other things, that no local agency
jurisdictional change can be completed without the agencies
affected by such change first having agreed upon an exchange of
property tax revenue between and among the affected agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
(Resolution No 186574 ) have developed a method for equitably
distributing the property taxes; and
WHEREAS, each specific annexation needs a resolution
from both the City and County agreeing to the exchange of
property tax revenues for the annexation to be completed and
filed with the State;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1 . That for the said annexation by the City of Dublin, (which
will be first effective for the fiscal year following the filing
of the Certificate of Completion with the State Board of
Equalization providing the filing occurs prior to December 31 of
the preceding year ) the Auditor-Controller of the County of
Alameda shall be directed to cause an exchange of property tax
revenues pursuant to the following provisions of paragraph
numbers 1 and 3 of Exhibit "A" of the property tax revenues
redistribution method developed by the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors .
1 ) In all annexations involving developed or developing
residential territory, as well as mixed
residential/commercial areas and vacant or underdeveloped
industrially-zoned areas, the City would automatically be
entitled to receive an allocation of the County' s general
fund computed property tax revenue from that area, equal to
the City/County' s existing allocation percentage ratio
within its corporate limits;
3 ) In the event that a City assumes full responsibility
for a service or services presently provided by a separate
County Taxing agency or special district within a territory
proposed to be annexed, pursuant to Revenue and Taxation
Code Sec. 99 (b) , the County will endeavor to transfer to
the City the entire computed property tax revenue presently
allocated to such County agency or district from said area .
2 ) The City certifies that there is no significant commercial
and/or industrial development in the proposed annexation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council
does hereby agree to the property tax revenues redistribution
method stated herein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1985 .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION WITH LAFCO
REGARDING PA 85-018 DUBLIN PUBLIC
LANDS PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 8 , 1984 and March
11, 1985 initiated the prezoning and annexation of approximately
2700 acres of publicly-owned properties generally east of
Dougherty Road and Southern Pacific Right of Way; west of
Tassajara Road; north of I-580 ; and south of Contra Costa County
line as described in PA 85-018 Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and
Annexation Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing on said application on 6/17/85 and recommended that the
City Council direct Staff to file an application with LAFCO
regarding PA 85-018 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on
said application on September 23 , 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, public notice of said prezoning and annexation
was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the environmental documents adopted for the
General Plan, along with the responses to comments on this
proposal, will adequately serve as the environmental documents for
this project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending that
an annexation application be filed with LAFCO; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all
said reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby find that :
1 ) The area to be annexed is within the Sphere of Influence
previously adopted by LAFCO;
2 ) The area to be annexed is contiguous to the City and will be
a logical extension of City boundaries;
3 ) The annexation will ensure that future development conforms
to City regulations and design criteria.;
4 ) The annexation will facilitate planning of the affected
properties and the properties to the east ;
5 ) The annexation is consistent with the General Plan
6 ) The City has approved the prezoning of the area to be annexed
to A (Agricultural ) District and PD (Planned Development ) -
Industrial District;
M Ell%
EXH U1 I
DP 83-20
7 ) The City has agreed to an exchange of property tax revenue
for said annexation.
8 ) The annexation will have a positive fiscal impact on the
City.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby
directs staff to file an application with LAFCO with respect to
this annexation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
, 1985 .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
DP 83-20
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date : June 17, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PA 85-018 , Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and
Annexation (Camp_ Parks Area ) to prezone and annex
approximately 2 , 700 acres of Camp Parks , Alameda
County, Tassajara Creek Regional Park, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S .
Department of Air Force, U .S. Department of
Justice and U.S . Government properties generally
located north of I-580 and west of Tassajara Road
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: Prezoning and annexation of the publicly-
owned properties noted above; No privately-
owned properties are included as part of this
project.
APPLICANT &
REPRESENTATIVE: City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Boulevard, - Suite D
Dublin, California 94568
PROPERTY CWNERS : U .S . Department of the Army
U . S . Department of the Air Force
U .S . Department of Justice
National Space & Aeronautics Administration
East Bav Regional Park District
Alameda County
U. S . Government
LOCATION: Bounded on the north by Contra Costa County,
on the south by Southern Pacific Railroad and
Interstate: 580 , on the west by Dougherty Road
and the east by Tassajara Road. (A small
portion of property in private ownership west
of Tassajara Road is not included in this
application; see location map, Attachment 1)
ASSESSOR
PARCEL NUMBERS : 941-15-1-5, 941-15-1-6, 94-15-1-7 ,
941-15-1-4 , 941-15-2
PARCET_ SIZE : U.S . Department of Army : 1196 . 6 acres
U. S . Department of Air Force : 11. 6 acres
U. S . Department of Justice : 83 . 0 acres
National Space & Aeronautics : 8 . 4 acres
East Bay Regional Park Dist : 457 . 3 acres
Alameda County : 951 . 8 acres
U. S . Government : 4 . 7 acres
TOTAL 2713 . 4 acres
EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE : The entire area is presently zoned
Agriculturai . Existing land use consists of
a Federal Reserve Training area , a Federal
Prison, a County Jail , a Regional Park and
two small parcels utilized by the Air Force
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
ATTACHM�LNI
w�
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION & Camp Parks , the East Bay Regional Park and
DEFINITIONS : the northern portion of Alameda County
property are designated Public Lands . The
southern portion of the County property ,
(approximately 600 acres ) is designated for
both Business Park Industrial and Business
Park/Industrial Low Coverage.
Public Lands Large holdings such as Parks
RFTA, Santa Rita and Tassajara Creek Regional
Park .
Business Park/Industrial Uses are non-retail
businesses (research, limited manufacturing
and distribution activities, and
administrative offices) that do not involve
heavy trucking or generate nuisances due to
emissions , noise, or open uses . Residential
uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable
ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are
controlled by parking and landscaping
requirements and typically result in .35 to
. 40 FAR ' s . Examples : Clark Avenue ; Sierra
Court .
Business Park/Industrial ; Low Coverage : This
classification is intended to provide a
campus-like setting with open plazas and
landscaped pedestrian amenities for the uses
described in the Business Park/Industrial
classification for the Primary Planning Area
and to allow retail uses to serve businesses
and residents . Maximum floor area ratio
(building floor area as percent of lot area)
to be determined by zoning regulations should
be between . 25 and . 37 .
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS :
Various California statutes deal with annexation procedures , the
California Environmental Quality Act documents environmental
review procedures , and the California Planning Law describes
prezoning regulations .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City is proposing to use the
environmental documents prepared for the
General Plan, along with responses to
comments for this proposal as the
environmental documents for this project .
NOTIFICATION:) Public Notice of the 6/17/85 hearing was published
in the Tri-valley Herald, mailed to adjacent
property owners , and posted in public buildings .
ANALYSIS :
At its meeting of October 8 , 1984 , the Dublin City Council
voted unanimously to proceed with the annexation of those
lands within the Parks Reserve Training Area (Camp Parks )
and Tassajara Creek Regional Park. At its meeting of March
11, 1985 , the Dublin City Council voted to expand this area
to include the County-owned property west of Tassajara Road.
Furthermore, the City Council directed Staff to develop a
service and financial plan for those areas to be annexed in
accordance with the requirements of the Local Agency
Commission Formation (LAFCO) . (See Attachment 2 )
-2-
After the 3/11/85 City Council meeting, Staff sent out
notices to affected agencies and individuals regarding the
proposed project and the City' s intention of using the
General Plan environmental documents as the environmental
documents for this project . Staff has also begun preparing
a service and financial plan for the areas to be annexed.
Since the environmental review period is over, and because
the City Council has set a relatively tight time schedule to
complete the annexation, this project has been set for
Planning Commission action. The Planning Commission needs
to make a recommendation on the following three items : 1)
Whether the environmental document is in compliance with
CEQA, 2 ) Prezoning designations for the affected area and 3 )
Specific areas to be annexed. The service and financial
plan (which has not been finalized at this time) does not
need Commission action. The three recommendations needed by
the Commission are discussed in detail below:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City received responses on the environmental review
from: East Bay Regional Park District, City of Pleasanton,
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) , Metropolitan
Transportion Commission (MTC) , Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, State Clearinghouse and BART. (See
Attachments 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 . ABAG, MTC, Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, requested the City to provide a more
detailed analysis than contained in the General Plan EIR.
BART requested an overlay zone be adopted at a subsequent
time in the area to be annexed. Staff responses to these
agencies comments are contained in Attachments 10, 11, 12, &
13 )
It is Staff ' s position that the General Plan environmental
documents provide as much analysis as is feasible or
warranted at this time , and that more detailed information
requested by these agencies should be done at the time
specific development projects are proposed. No projects are
being proposed or approved as part of this prezoning and
annexation . Since any potential development of the 600
acres of industrial property owned by Alameda County is
perhaps 5-8 years away, any detailed studies done at this
time would probably be outdated by the time a specific
project was proposed. This may lead to a situation where an
entirely new environmental review is required, resulting in
two environmental reviews for one project. If development
was 1-2 years away, of known amount and type, it may be
appropriate to do the environmental review at this time .
However, that is not the case in this situation .
When the initial General Plan EIR was developed, it did not
envision an additional 660 acres in the extended planning
area being designated' for industrial business park uses .
This is the reason why a Supplemental EIR was developed.
The Supplemental EIR examined the environmental effects of
the plan changes on traffic , jobs/housing balance and air
quality . The Supplemental EIR was circulated to affected
agencies and individuals for review and comments . Responses
to comments were then prepared. Finally, on 2/11/85 the
Dublin City Council adopted the General Plan and Final EIR,
which consisted of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on
the Draft EIR, the Supplemental EIR, and statement of
overriding considerations ( See Attachment 14 )
It is Staff ' s position that the environmental documents
noted above are adequate , in compliance with CEQA and can
serve as the environmental documents for this project .
Further refinements and more detailed analysis will be
considered when specific development projects are proposed.
-3-
PREZONING DESIGNATIONS
One of LAFCO' s policies is to require a City to prezone
property prior to submitting a petition to annex territory.
The purpose of this policy is to make it clear to LAFCO,
affected agencies and individuals the City' s future intent
for the subject area . The prezoning also establishes the
zoning that will be effective at such time the annexation is
completed.
Staff has identified the following six options for the
prezoning :
1 - prezone the site to Public Lands, Business
Park/Industrial and Business Park/Industrial : Low
Coverage as provided in the General Plan;
2 - prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural and the
Industrial areas to M-1, Light Industrial ;
3 - prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural, and the
Business Park/Industrial and the Business
Park/Industrial Low Coverage areas to an interim
ordinance ; -
4 - prezone the entire area to an interim ordinance;
5 - request LAFCO waive the prezoning requirement ;
6 - prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural and
prezone both industrial areas (Business Park/Industrial
and Business Park/Industrial : Low Coverage) to M-1,
with an overlay that states no development shall be
allowed in this area unless a Planned Development is
approved.
The disadvantage associated with option one is that the City
does not presently have a Public Lands Zoning District or a
Business Park Low Coverage District. These ordinances will
have to be developed separately or as part of the
comprehensive revision of the Zoning Ordinance . The City
Council could delay the annexation until these zoning
districts were developed, but this could be a lengthy
process .
The disadvantage associated with option two is that the
existing M-1 ordinance is much too broad for the Low
Coverage and Business Park Industrial areas . The Scarlett
Court area is reflective of M-1 uses .
Option three is a valid option because it enables the City
to adopt an interim ordinance for both industrial areas . In
essence, an interim ordinance precludes or substantially
restricts most uses within a designated area until a
specific ordinance is adopted. State law allows a City to
adopt an interim ordinance, provided it is done by a four-
fifth vote of the legislative body. The interim ordinance
is initially valid for 45 days and can be subsequently
extended for ten months and 15 days and then again for one
more year, for a total of two years . While the new
ordinance is being adopted, the City could process
individual development proposals with a Conditional Use
Permit . The Conditional Use Permit process would ensure
that the proposed development would not conflict with the
future ordinance . If a specific ordinance was not adopted
within the two year period, the City Council could zone the
Business Park/Industrial areas to M-1, with a PD overlay .
-4-
Option four would result in adopting an interim ordinance
for the entire area . This approach would give the City two
years to develop specific zoning ordinances for the Public
Lands area and both Industrial areas and would allow certain
uses to proceed with a Conditional Use Permit.
Option five would result in a formal request by the City to ,
request LAFCO to waive the requirement to prezone the
annexed area . This request, if approved, would eliminate
the problem of prezoning for the near future, but the City
would be faced with the zoning issue after the annexation
was completed. If the City did not prezone the property, an
interim zoning ordinance would almost have to be adopted
when the annexation was completed. The waiving of the
prezoning requirement would not result in a shorter time
period to complete the annexation . The reason that time
would not be saved is because the prezoning process could be
done in conjunction with the environmental review, which has
a 45 day review period. Prezoning the property at this time
would clearly establish the City ' s intent for this area and
would avoid the need to have an interim ordinance once the
annexation was completed.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission choose option
six, which would include the prezoning of the public lands
properties to Agricultural and the Business Park/Industrial
and Business Park/Industrial Low Coverage areas to M-1 . An
overlay district would be established in both business
park/industrial areas which would require a Planned
Development (PD) to be approved for all new development
proposals .- The Planned Development process would ensure
that development is consistent with the objectives and
policies for the business park/industrial areas as
identified in the General Plan . Further refinements would
be done to the zoning districts after the property was
annexed. In the long term, it may be best to develop a
specific plan in this area to further implement the policies
of the General Plan.
At the 3/11/85 City Council Meeting, the City Council voted
unanimously to initiate prezoning of the subject area under
option number six. Staff believes this is the best
alternative for this proposal .
ANNEXATION
One of the principal goals identified by the City Council is
to annex the publicly-owned properties west of Tassajara
Road. This entire area is within the sphere of influence
adopted by LAFCO on 1/18/84 . Not only is this area within
the City' s Sphere of Influence, but is contiguous to the
City as well . Accordingly, the area should be annexed to
ensure future land uses and development comply with City
regulations and design standards . Further, the City will be
in a better position to plan the development of this area if
it is annexed.
When LAFCO approved the City' s Sphere of Influence, they
made several findings, among them were :
1) The type of development occuring in the area outside of
the City and the DSRSD but within the Sphere of
Influence will be a reasonable distribution of housing,
commercial and industrial development . Adequate
finances are considered available for this development .
2 ) Areas within the Sphere of Influence that are outside
of the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District are provided minimum levels of police and fire
protection and no recreation services , domestic water
-5-
or sewage disposal system. Adequate levels of
municipal services would be provided to areas as they
are actually annexed to the City and the District .
3 ) The range of services to the area of the District and ,
City are adequate . . The City and District have the
capability to provide a full range of services to areas
as they are annexed.
4 ) The present City of Dublin is the commercial center for
the proposed Sphere of Influence and any developments
within the Sphere would probably be served by the
commercial and cultural attractions of the present City
of Dublin. The area south of I-580 generally is served
by the City of Pleasanton .
Staff believes that it is appropriate and necessary to annex
the publicly-owned properties , west of Tassajara Road for
the reasons noted above .
RECOMMENDATION
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear staff presentation
2 ) Take testimony from the public
3 ) Question staff
4 ) Close public hearing and deliberate
5 ) Adopt Resolutions regarding the Environmental
Review, Prezoning, and annexation
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following three Resolutions :
1) Exhibit A - A Resolution recommending the environmental
documents be adopted
2) Exhibit B - A Resolution recommending the prezoning be
approved
3 ) Exhibit C- A Resolution recommending the City Council
direct Staff to file an annexation application
with LAFCO
ATTACHMENTS
1) Exhibit A Draft Resolution re : the environmental
review
2 ) Exhibit B Draft Resolution re : the prezoning
3 ) Exhibit C Draft Resolution re : the annexation
4 ) Exhibit D Draft Ordinance
Background Attachments
1 ) Location Map
2 ) March 11 , 1985 City Council staff report
3 ) Letter from East Bay Regional Park District
4 ) Letter from City of Pleasanton
5 ) Letter from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
6 ) Letter from Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC )
7 ) Letter from Bay Area Air Quality Management District
8 ) Letter from State Clearinghouse
9 ) Letter from BART
10 ) Letter to BART
11 ) Letter to MTC
-6-
12 ) Letter to ABAG
13 ) Letter to Bay Area Air Quality Maintenance District
14 ) Statement of overriding considerations for adoption of
General Plan
COPIES TO
National Space and Aeronautics Administration
U.S . Department of Army
U.S . Department of Air Force
U.S . Department of Justice
U. S . Government
East Bay Regional Park District
Alameda County
-7-
1
i 1 g0AIi0 of 01RECropS '
WALTER COSTA.Prn,.f-n
` TEO RAOKE.Yws P-S-1-A
` l y.
I 1 B \Zl LYNN eOWERS.SOCTO"VY
,y 11 -11 •IOXN O'004VELL.tl .sulw
1 JALIES X OUNCAN
Re 1'ark DistriCt MARY LEE.EFFEROS
XARLAN KESSEL
i 1500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE(415)531.9300 RICXAROC rRUCEAU
G~31 Manaym
RECEIVED.
DUBLIN PLp,NNING
Mr. Lawrence Tong
Dublin Planning Department
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94560
Subject: Proposed Annexation of Tassajara Creek Regional Park to
the City of Dublin
Dear Mr. Tong:
The EBRPD has reviewed the notice of the subject project. The District
understands that Tassajara Creek RegionalPark
un would be prthatned foand
agricultural uses under the project. also
recreational development would be a permissible use under that Zoning.
If the above understandings are correct, the District has no cause to
offer objections to the project.
If the City decides to proceed with any further environmental impact
document, the contact person will be the undersigned who may be reached
on Extension 263.
Very truly yours,
T. H. Lindenmeyer
Environmental Coordinator
Planning and Design
TL:lm
cc: R. C. Trudeau
J. Kent
L. Crutcher
H. Hornbeck
�, ��� 1. �� ��`���•,
NSANTo
CITY OF PLEASANT vN
\ / N
P.O. BOX 520 PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566-0802
0
YOFFICES RE C E IV EE'
0 OLD BERNAL AVE. May 8 , 19^05 p_
'Y COUNCIL
,7-8001
Y MANAGER
17-8008 DUBLIN PLANNING
Y ATTORNEY Mr. Tom DeLuca
17-8003 Planning Department
DANCE City of Dublin
17.8033
P. 0. BOX 2340
RSONNEL
47-8012 Dublin, California 94563
ANNING
47.8023 Re: Pre zoning/Annexation of Camp Par;:s/Tassa j ara
IGINEERING Road Area
47-8041
11LDING INSPECTION
47-8015 Dear Mr. DeLuca:
IMMUNITY SERVICES
47-8160 The City of Pleasanton Planning Department has reviewed
ELD SERVICES your public notice regarding the adequacy of
X335 SUNOL BLVD. environmental documents for the City of Dublin's
kRKS proposed prezoning and annexation of Camp Parks and
147-8056 Tassaj ara Road areas.
UNITARY SEWER
147-8061
We note that the subject area was previously designate
rREETS
347-8066 for the uses which are being proposed for the area of
(ATER this annexation. Therefore, if the CEQA guidelines
347.8071 were followed in the preparation of the General Plan
IRE EIR and it was certified by your Council as adequate,
4444 RAILROAD AVE. It would appear that the issues discussed in the EIR
847-8114 would be relevant to the annexation of these
properties . We would agree that the listed
833eERNALAVE. environmental impacts in the notice (increased traffic,
847-8127 degradation of air quality, loss of agricultural and
grazing land, loss of open space) are potential
significant impacts .
It is probably more critical what environmental
documentation will be prepared for future projects in
this area. Your EIR discussed the future opportunities
for public ,policy decisions, when further studies and
more detailed environmental assessments could be made
at the time of specific development plan submittals .
We assume that this will be the case when this area is
available for development under your jurisdiction and
General Plan policies . Given the site location, it is
inevitable that development will have impacts beyond
your City boundaries, particularly with regards to 11A�! 9
.A-'mr".A �- .
f � ,
Mr. Toin DeLuca
May 8 , 1985
Page 2
traffic circulation, infrastructure improvements,
housing, and air quality issues .
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this
project and will do so again in the future where
appropriate. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
sincerely,
Lawrence Lew
Assistant Planner
LL/kh
l l
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
MelroCenter
Eighth 3 Oak Streets I
Oakland G
(415)464-7900 R
Mailing Address:
PO. Box 2050
Oakland,CA 94604
May 3, 1985
Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
Re: Public Notice of Intent to Prezone and Annex Land East of Dublin
Dear Mr. Tong:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. The following staff
comments reflect general concerns expressed by many locally elected Bay Area
officials as embodied in ABAG's Regional Plan 1980. ABAG's Executive Board
has not taken a position on this document, nor on the proposed project.
The above referenced notice indicates that you are considering using the
General Plan EIR and its supplement as the environmental documents for the
proposed annexation. While these EIRs were adequate for certifying Dublin's
General Plan, we believe that more information is needed to evaluate the
city's annexation proposal. First, the General Plan EIR does not evaluate
alternative land uses for this site - for example, housing, or mixed uses.
Second, it does not provide specific information about how proposed and
approved development in other nearby communities will affect the subregional
demand for housing. Unless this is discussed in the EIR, decision-makers
cannot fully evaluate the project's impact. For example, both Livermore
and Pleasanton have approved projects which could substantially increase
employment opportunities in the Tri-Valley area_ However, we believe,
Pleasanton is not expecting to provide housing opportunities beyond that
required to house workers in its own planning area. Consequently, the
environmental impact of adding more jobs could be much more substantial
than if the project were located in eastern Contra Costa County where
housing exceeds jobs. l �.
The DEIR should also contain more information about the income levels
associated with anticipated job growth. You may want to refer to the attached
memos, prepared by ABAG for the I680/I580 Corridor Study.
Mr. Laurence Tong
May 3, 1985
Page 2
The Supplemental EIR questions whether small local jurisdictions can be
expected to maintain a jobs/housing balance. With the rapid employment growth
proposed for the Tri-Valley area, if small jurisdictions do not make adequate
and affordable housing available to new workers, expected job growth may not
in fact occur. If it does, a variety of impacts could severely affect
existing residents.
If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Patricia
Perry of our staff. Her direct dial number is 415-464-7937.
Sincerely,
Yvonne San Jule
Planning Coordinator
1 �
'MTC
METROPOLITAN • .
TRANSPORTATION '
COMMISSION
May 6, 1985
W.1. : 902.80.01
MEfROCENTER
tot 8TH STREET Department - - t \4:•.I
oAKL,�NO tl,ylbo7 •Ci ty of Dubl i n Planning
'
(415)44-7700 6500 Dublin Boulevard Suite D
Alameda County p 94568 i:;;' ..:,
C •,,.s? y
Dublin,
JOSEPH P.SORT
VALANCE GILL Attention: Tom DeLuca _ •`,"'-' ` -- ' __._. .. . ,:"'
1
Contra Costa County
i
ROBERT I.SCHROOER Subject: Environmental Document on *the •Annexation and :: ;,::;.:��;:•� 1
C°"` ' Prezoni n o ,696 acres Cam Parks/Santa Rita
i
STEVE WEIR
Renabi station Center/ assajara Par ,
Marin County
ROBERT a.STOCKWELL Dear Mr. 'DeLuca: .
•"' Napa County ..•: .. ....._ .._..1
KATHLEEN McCULLOUCH .MTC staff has reviewed the Public Not ice from the City of Dublin >_•�_.;
San Francisco— regarding the proposed use of the General Plan EIR as the ._.:
City and County environmental document for the proposed project, which entails ;
DORIS W.KAHN .....i ::'�
Vice Chair annexation and prezoning of 2,696 acres north of I-580 between -.. . .. ..... .
QUENTIN L.KOPP Dougherty and Tassajara Road. The 660 acres'closest to 'I-580 are "-�"-==.��-: ::11
San Mateo County proposed for commercial/industrial use, which would generate 19,800
JANE BAKER new jobs. This letter
transmits staff comments. .. .: _ -. -t
• .. JOHN M.WARD •. a-- t ...,.. i!
S ame Clan County P P project) .The p proposed i s an annexation and prezoning, which - _~' •-�
" �'.4
RODDBRIDON appears to be a distinct project, clearly separable .from and
ROY LAVE ....subsequent to the original project, which was adoption of the :. ;;si=r=-}
General Plan. Proposals to change the zoning of an area usually
;� .
Solano County r f
WILLIAM JENKINS are analyzed by a separate EIR rather .than�relyi ng on �a::General .f ''�:�•.,
Plan EIR; it's not clear why this prezoning should be treated
Sonoma County .differently. Anew EIR that provides more detailed analysis of -'- -;:s :t• i
=r : • :a
WILLIAM R.LUCIUS :transportation and other concerns seems to be necessary.
.;Association o :::...:. -: � :a� r%.,.t..-i.:�,c�•.
..'Jay Area Governments ''' - :• a' :. -.•:•. .::;• :::• t> '• - ..:- •`�'.- �
RALPH C.BOLIN 2) - There have been numerous changes in the tion
transportation. situa
....since the General Plan DEIR.was published in December, ]984.
s.F.Bay c°"""arson - changes should be addressed in the -annexation'
andDerdopment 4'� : '".These ch
Commission •a•'
EARL projecting
defici-t of State funds for •the t,r;
,:.o.. :: Cal trans is ;q
State easiness.
Transportation and
" . ' State Transportation Improvement Program of approximately
Housing Agency : " $800 million, which may delay new construction projects,
BURGH BACHTOLD such .as the widening of I-680.
U.S.Department
of Transportation
ROBERT E.MAYER o Major interchange improvement projects needed to serve
redevelopment of the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center (i.e. ,
interchanges with I-580 at Tassajara/Santa Rita,
Executive Director Dougherty/Hopyard and the proposed new Hacienda Drive
LAWRENCE D.DAHMS interchange) are currently listed i n the region's
Deputy ExecunveDirector Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as locally funded
WILLIAM F.HEIN projects. At present, the City of Dublin is not
Letter to City
of Dublin
2 :i.F,May 6, 1985. -
participating in the funding °vet these
subject property cannot
benefit from them. Indeed, development p
occur without these improvements to the area's transportation system. ..
Serious consideration should be given to local contributions to needed
improvements, including use of assessment and/or redevelopment
districts, traffic impact fees, and other .forms of developer .
--
contributions.
o Extension of BART to Dublin and public transit use of.the San Ramon c; .'
Railroad branch line have not been funded, and may .be del ayed i f the e- ri's
;Reagan Admi ni strati on s proposal tCreduce••-transi t 'funds a i
implemented.
A new EIR would seem to be necessary to address these changes in the :;, .. :_ ;...,_
transportation setting, and to analyze local funding options for needed . ,; -• `,:
transportation improvements. ;
3) The possibility and environmental effects of alternative land uses *should
be evaluated in an EIR. The alternatives in the General Plan EIR
addressed the Primary Planning area of the City,-but not the area
currently proposed for annexation. Designation of the annexation area for
residential or mixed use, rather than Business Park/Industrial , could
significantly improve the Tri-Valleys jobs/housing balance, and reduce
the need for extensive highway widenings along I-580 and I-680 to
accommodate in-commuting workers.
We submitted comments on the General Plan Draft EIR on March 8, .1984, and have
s response. A copy of the March 8 letter is attached, •:
not received the City ; ;:
and we resubmit those comments for the proposed annexation.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your..'public notice. PI ease .send -
me 'a notice of the decision reached by the City Counci 1 .''`:A copy of:the
General Plan Final EIR, including the response to our March 8, 1984 .comments,
and the statement of overriding considerations adopted February ;11 ; 1985 would L
-also be
appreciated.
'Very truly'yours�..
Ir.
• Jeff Georgevich
: f Environmental Review Officer. -
JG:w
Attachment
cc: ABAG Clearinghouse
Marianne Payne, BART
Ed Pang, Caltrans
Jean Roggenkamp, BAAQMD
Joe Bort
Mel Hing
(1054Z)
r '
'':Ljotropolitan Transportation. Commission.
• March 8, 1984
W.I. : 902-90-01
Commissioners
Alameda County
JOSEPH PBOAT .Mr. Laurence Tong .
VALANCE GILL City of Dublin
ContraCoal-County Planning Department .
ROBERT I.SCHROOER—Vice Cttair P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568
STEvE WEIR
►tarin County Subject: Draft EIR for Dublin General Plan ._-
ROBERT 8 STOCKWELL
Napa County Dear Mr. Tong:
WILLIAM L.CHEW
Santa Cl.r.county This letter transmits MTC staff comments on the Draft EIR and-General
Plan.
ROO OIRIOON
ROY LAVE 1) The assumptions used for the traffic forecasts (see page 2-22)
San Francisco— are different from the assumptions in the discussion of the
City and County
jobs/housing balance (see page 3-30) , as indicated below:
OORISW KAHN
aL:ENTINL KOPP-.Cttal( Housina Units Jobs Jobs per Housing Unit
C \Mateo County
JANE t3AAER Traffic, Scenario 2A 97,000 '145,000 1 .49
ARLENGREGGRIO Traffic, Scenario 2B 119,000 242,000 2.03
Solano County ABAG Projections '83 90,000 132,200 1 .47
Planned Jobs 90,000 201 ,000 2.23
WILLIAM JENKINS
Sonoma County The implications of more jobs and less housing than was assumed in
WILLIAM LUCIUS the traffic section in TJKM's Scenario 2A should be discussed in
Association of the traffic section, in terms of congestion on freeways and arteri-
Bay Area Governments als. Maintaining a jobs/housing balance should be listed as a
PALPHC BOLIN means of mitigating traffic congestion.
S.F.Bay Conservation and
oevelopmentcommisslon 2) The discussion of the proposed BART Extension to Dublin, on page
EARL PMILLS 2-23, does not indicate a time frame for implementing BART service;
State Business. but, the analysis of traffic congestion assumes that by 2005, 51.
Tr'"'ngAgen '"° of peak period trips will use BART. In view of competition within
Housing Agency P P P P
VACANCY the Bay Area for rail funds, and. the• shortage of rail funds at the /
state and national levels, the assumption that BART will be provid-
U.S.Dept.of Transportation ing rail service to Dublin by 2005 may be optimistic. In order to
ROBERT E.MAYER present a "worst case analysis," the EIR should indicate the effect
Executive staff of not having a BART extension on local and regional roads.
Eaecu"ve Olrector
LAWRENCE CA-`AS 3) The Draft EIR lists BART, local bus, and the SP Transportation Cor-
DeoutyEACCUIIVeolr*ctor ridor as mitigation measures, but indicates that those measures are
WILLIAM FHEIN not "within the independent discretion of the City of Dublin" (see
page 1 of the DEIR) . This discussion of mitigations on pages 1 and
10 should be expanded to include the following:
Hotel Claremont . Berkeley, California 94705 • (415) 849-3223 '
Page 2: Letter from Ge le%-' 'h to Tong, Draft EIR for C lin
:,o include Commute Alternatives , which are largely controlled by local cities. The
traffic analysis assumes a 10% diversion of trips to carpools, which is unlikely
to occur unless Dublin and other Tri-Valley communities encourage it. The at-
tached chart, entitled "Suggested Commute Alternatives Program for New Development
as a Function of Cumulative Employment," offers a variety of measures that could
be mandated by the City through its development review process. The City may wish
to include the chart in the EIR and the General Plan.
o:provide .local funding for transit. Due to the shortage of funds for rail exten-
sions and transit operating subsidies, all levels of government [federal , state,
and regional] are giving high priority to transit projects that entail local com-
mitment of more than the required minimum level of funding. Dublin should evalu-
ate the use of benefit assessment districts around BART and LRT stations, develop-
ment fees earmarked for transit, and other -local revenue generating mechanisms as
means :of providing local funds for transit projects. Provision of such funding
is within the "independent discretion" of the City, and would significantly im- '
prove: the likelihood of transit being provided.
MTC appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft EIR, and looks fordard to receiv-
ing a copy of the Final EIR.
Very truly yours,
Jeff Georgevich,
Environmental Review Ofr"icer
JG:r
cc: ABAG Clearinghouse
Att.
SUGGEST 1TE ALTERNATIYES PROGRAM F.... )EYELOPMENT
,., A FUNCTION OF CUMULATIYE EMPLUsALNT
Cumulative Employment
A , B C D
(50-100) (100-200) (200-500) (500+)
1 . Post transit 1 . Preferential park- 1 . Carpool/Yanpool 1 . Designate a
information on ing for carpools/ matching program. Transporta-
fares and sched- vanpools. (R) Lion Coordina-
ules .in central for position
location(s) .(T) with-in com-
pany.
2. Post i nforraati on 2. Onsi to ticket sales 2. Annual survey of 2. Develop
on carpool and for transit. (T) employee cortmute plan for
vanpool cost patterns. (1 ) access to reg-
savings. (R) (R), (M) _ ional transit
services. (3)
(T) , M-
3. Participate in 3., Comm to altenatives 3. Annual distribu- 3. Evaluate the
RIDES campaigns. information packet tion of informa- role of subsi-
(R) for new employees. tion to all dies (transit,
(R), (T) employees on ride- . carpool , van-
sharing possibili- pool ) in
ties and transit achieving
- information. local ride-
sharing goals
goals (2) .
(T) , (R)
4. Participate in a 4. Transit amenities 4. Local incentives 4. Emergency
local Transporta- (shelters, bus program-awards, backup for
tation Coordinator turnouts, sidewalks, recognition, poss- carpool/van-
Association. etc. ).(T) ible subsidies pool users
etc. (2)
5. Bicycle storage,
showers and lockers
for bicyclists and
walkers/joggers.
6. Evaluate
feasibility of
flex-time program.
FOOTNOTES:
(1 ) To be processed by others and made available to cities, transit districts, and
ridesharing agencies.
(2) Program to be submitted for local review prior to project approval ; amount of
subsidies, if any, to be determined prior to local approval .
(3) For residential developments, shuttles to regional transit should be consiaerzd.
Agencies that can provide major assistance: (T) Transit district, (R)-RIDES or
local ridesharing agency, (H)-KTC.
(� l The chart is progressive; Column B includes all items listed in Column A, etc.
-24-
WPM
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
February 1 , 1985
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Attn: Laurence L . Tong
Planning Director
.... _ ..
Dear Mr. Tong :
We have reviewed the Supplemental EIR for the Dublin General
Plan. The SEIR examines the effects of Plan re-designation of
660 acres from open space or residential development to
L. business/industrial park development.
The proposed change would add approximately 19,800 employees
in a subregion already expected to have a net in-commute at full
development. The air pollution impacts that could result from
this change are not adequately addressed in the SEIR. No
quantitative analysis of the impacts of the anticipated
development is provided. We suggest that citizens and decision
-... - makers would be much better informed if the potential level of
air quality impacts of the Plan change were made known. The
- -- planning stage provides an ideal point to consider cumulative
effects and to establish policies to minimize the local and
regional air quality impacts of development. Estimated air-
quality levels provide the necessary first step toward reducing
future air quality problems.
Carbon monoxide from motor vehicles is the air pollutant of
areatest concern in the Dublin area. We recommend that the model
CALINE3 or the model in the BAAQMD Guidelines (1975) be used to
produce estimates of maximum ambient carbon monoxide concentra-
tions at intersections most likely to be affected by traffic from
development in the businesstindustrial park area. The analysis
should include proposed cumulative development and transportation
improvements in the subregion. Background concentrations of CO
should be added to development generated CO. Shown below are the
District 's estimates of CO background concentrations for this
area :
CO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM
Averaging
Time 1983 1987 2000
1-hour 5.0 4 .0 3.6
8-hour 3.8 3.2 2.9
r
: �� Jj�
City of Dublin
February 1, 1985
Page 2
We also suggest that you estimate CO levels with proposed
mitigation measures in place. If air quality standards are
exceeded , additional mitigations and/or limitations on traffic
generating land uses should be implemented.
We commend you for requiring "assured Transportation System
Management (TSM) measures as a condition of development approval "
(page 1 of SEIR ) . We recommend that the conditions explicitly
state the obligations of developers, property owners, and/or
major employers to implement measures such as flextime, car/van
pooling, bicycle use, and transit subsidies.
If you have any questions, please call Jean Roggenkamp, the
Planner in our office.
Sincerely,'
Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
MF: ce
cc : D. Lott , ARn
endations for Analysis
of Air Quality Impacts
We recommend that the EIR contain a candid qualitative and
quantitative description of the project 's air quality impacts .
All pollutants which may be emitted from the project itself or
from project-generated vehicular traffic should be analyzed.
Of particular interest from industrial uses are pollutants
for which air quality standards have been set by State and
federal agencies : ozone and its reactive organic precursors ,
oxides of nitrogen, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, and , where relevant, lead, hydrogen sulfide,
vinyl chloride, ethylene and visibility-reducing particles .
Odorous, toxic or hazardous airborne materials are also of
interest, even though ambient standards have not been set. For
proposed industrial zones where the specific industries are not
yet known, inital estimates of emissions should be made from
existing facilities which resemble the most probable uses.
The vehicle-generated pollutants of concern are carbon
monoxide, reactive organic compounds, and particulates . Calcul-
ations of particulates should include those resuspended from
roads by vehicles and , separately, particulates caused by
construction activities.
We suggest the following process for analyzing the air
quality impacts of the project :
1 . Describe the existing land uses of the project site and
its vicinity in regard to air quality concerns. In
particular, note the location and emissions of direct
sources of air pollutants and airborne hazardous
materials . In addition, show the location of sensitive
receptors, including residential areas, schools ,
hospitals, nursing homes, playgrounds, parks, and
recreation facilities .
2 . Calculate worst-case air pollutant emissions from the
project and due to project-generated traffic.
3. Consider mitigation measures to reduce the air quality
impacts of the project. Useful references are "Local
Government Guide to Project Mitigation and .Other
Improvement Measures for Air Quality," BAAQMD, 1983
Draft; "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments,
Section V, " California Air Resources Board, 1983; and
"The Traffic Mitigation Reference Guide, " Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, 1984. Commitments to imple-
menting proposed mitigation measures should be iden-
tified. Mitigation measures to reduce traffic and air
pollutant emissions should be incorporated into the
project to reduce any negative impact it may have on the
environment and to help the Bay Area attain and maintain
the State and federal ambient air quality standards .
Where mitigation measures may significantly reduce local
concentrations of carbon monoxide, we recommend that
reductions be quantified .
4. Estimate maximum ambient carbon monoxide concentrations
at points or areas of maximum air quality impact and at
sensitive receptors . The estimated concentrations should
be calculated for 1-hour and 8-hour averaging times. For
projects attracting over 3000 vehicles per day, we
recommend the model CALINE3 to estimate motor vehicle
carbon monoxide impacts . For smaller projects, some
simplified modeling techniques are contained in the
publication "Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Analysis
of Projects, available from the BAAQMD. Be sure to add
the appropriate background concentration to the estimated
locally generated concentration and to explain the source
or the rationale for the background level selected.
5. Compare the total projected carbon monoxide concentra-
tions with State and federal air quality standards .
When other development is approved or proposed in the
vicinity of the project, we recommend that the air quality
analysis also evaluate cumulative development impacts on air
quality.
` GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. G.-er"ar
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET �
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 r C F Ill ED ~ '
RF
(016/445-0613)
'DUELIN PLiaN`IING
Tom De Luca May 8, 1985
City of Dubl i'n
P.C. box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
--J__ Pry.=onin .� u ilne\dtlOn OI Cdr�iL rdrKS IdSSd,]drd t,fc�r. Regional Park,
SCH 85040208
Ce°r Mr. De Luca:
'h
The State Clearirghcuse sutr,iitted W,e above named envircrz-.ental dcc,.Jrert to
selected State agencies for r.= *=W. Tne review period is closed and ncne Of
the state agencies have co=ents• 111-li s letter a6Towledges tlat you have
cornplied with the State Clearins'ouse review r-_quire:rents for draft ,i
envircrr�ental doc=ents, pursuant to the C21ifOr.*La Envirorr,E':ztal may- J
Act.
a all U--Ice t' 1' er 9!''1/I!45-0613 if you rave any questions re'C_' {"7
P_e,..52 C.-- N2_•C at
the e_^,V{1',1 e_^.teal review process. t'1�1en cc -actirZ he Cle?ri nc_c se in this
di',- State Clearirg:_ouse nuTicer so that we tray
GZtt2^, please 11se the eight o
respond promptly.
Sincerely,
Joan B. Cha ian
Chief Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Research
_ 1 ,
B A R T BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
800 Madison Street
P.O. Box 12688
. _
Oakland, CA A 94 94604-2688 1•:; _* �" �' � �
Telephone (415)464-6000 '" )
May 20, 1985
DUBLIN PL4NNI�VG
Mr. Laurence Tong
Planning Director
City of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
WILFRED T. USSERY Dublin, CA 94568
PRESICENT
JOHN GLENN Subject: Environmental Document on the Annexation and Prezon-
vICE•PRESICErIr ing of 2 ,696 acres (portion of Camp Parks, Tasajara
KEITH BERNARD Creek Regional Park and county-owned property west
GcIEPALMANAGER of Tasajara Road)
DIRECTORS Dear Mr. Tong:
BARCLAYSIMPSON BART staff has reviewed the Public Notice from the City of
IST DIS'RICT
=LLOeIANCO Dublin regarding the above referenced project and the Genera
N
� Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and supplemental EIR
zNOOI ANCO
which the City proposes to use as the environmental document
ARTHUR J.SHARTSIS for this project. BART staff would like to offer the follow-
3RO OISTRICT
ing comments.
MARGARE-K.PRYOR
ATH OISTRiCT
The BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension (LPX) Study Update
RceERTS.ALLEN
5TH DISTRICT Analysis was completed in December of .1983. Subsequent to the
completion of the Update Analysis, the BART Board of Directors
JOHN GLENN adopted a portion of the LPX alignment which extends along
6TH.01S T niC7
WILFRED T.USSERY SR 238 and the I-580 right-of-way from the existing Bay air
7TH DISTRICT Station to the proposed Dublin Station at the I-580/I-680
EUGENEGARISTRCT interchange. This station site is included in the City of
8TH D�INKLE Dublin General Plan. BART staff will proceed in the near
JOHNH. THOIST00 future with a supplemental analysis which will investigate
9TH olsTal D alignments east of the Dublin Station to downtown Livermore as
alternatives to routes identified in the LPX Update Analysis.
The two primary route alignments identified in the Update
Analysis are the I-580 alignment and the Railroad Corridor
Route. The purpose of a supplemental study is to develop
recommendations which would assist the BART Board in complet-
ing the adoption of a preferred LPX alignment.
The LPX Update Analysis identifies two site alternatives for '
the Pleasanton Station, reflecting the two BART alignments.
Consequently, it is anticipated that the supplemental analysis
will result in the recommendation and Board adoption of one of
these station alternatives. The I-580 alignment station
alternative is bisected by I-580, with nine acres of parking
to the south of the freeway and fifteen acres of parking to
the north of the freeway within the City of Dublin' s proposed
annexation area.
Page Two
Letter to L. Tong
Dated 5/20/85
The City of Dublin General Plan, Volume I contains a general designation of the
I-580 Pleasanton Station alternative. The impacts and potential traffic mitiga-
tion potential of this site are also discussed in both the General Plan EIR and
the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the General Plan. The SEIR also addresses the
possibility of a BART park/ride facility on the future Pleasanton Station site.
The City of Dublin General Plan, Volume I, contains policies which support BART
station location proposals and which support the preservation of extension sta-
tion sites. BART recommends, if a Pleasanton thattaanooverlaynplan annexation \�
is adopted by the BART Board of Directors,
the City and BART for inclusion in the General Plan detailing any proposed sta-
tion.
BART appreciates the City of Dublin' s efforts to preserve future BART station
sites. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project.
Sincerely,
f
Barbara R. Neustadter
Manager of Planning
BAN:MAP :mjo
cc: Richard C. Wenzel , Supervisor of Extension Planning
Marianne A. Payne, Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Planner
CITY OF DUBLIN
Develo meat Services P1anninS.2oiiH,9 829.41116
P.O. Bo.\ 23,10 Bui!diny Safety 8-90.Or^_2
June 7 , 1985 Ertyi:t�c�ri:iu,'Pttlilic lVodis S"_9-4916'
Duhlin, CA 9�l5tiS -
Barbara Neustadter
BART
800 Madison Street
p . O. Box 1268B
Oakland, California 94604-2688
RE : PA 85-018 , Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and
Annexation
Dear Ms . Neustadter :
The City has received your comments dated 5/20/85 regarding the
prezoning and annexation of the publicly-owned properties west of
Tassajara Road.
The City acknowledges the BART recommendation: "If a Pleasanton
Station within the annexation area is adopted by the BART Board
of Directors , an overlay plan be developed by the City and BART
for inclusion in the General Plan detailing any proposed
station. "
At such time the BART Board of Directors establishes a station
within the area to be annexed, the City will wort with BART to
consider an overlay plan and appropriate General Plan
refinements .
We appreciate your comments on this proposal If you have any
further questions , please contact Tom DeLuca at 829-4916 .
Sincerely,
Laurence L . Tong,,
Planning Director
LLT/j
10 r, .�: `.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning Zoning 829-4910
P.O. Box 2340 Building S Safety 829-0ti22
Dublin, CA 9,1568
June 6 , 1985 EnSineering Public Works 829.4916
Mr . Jeff Georgevic-h
MTC
101 8th Street
Oakland, California 94607
RE: PA 85-018 , Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and Annexation
Dear Mr. Georgevich:
The City has received your comments dated 5/6/85 regarding the
prezoning and annexation of the publicly-owned properties west of
Tassajara Road.
General Response
The initial EIR prepared for the General Plan was done in
February 1984 . Following a series of public hearings held by the
City Council, and a request by Alameda County, an additional 660
acres in the extended planning area was designated for
industrial/business park use . As a result of this modification,
a Supplemental EIR was prepared, which examined the effects of
the proposed plan changes on traffic, jobs/housing balance, and
air quality. Following a review period on the Supplemental EIR,
the City Council at a public hearing adopted a final EIR which
consisted of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, the supplement to the EIR, and responses to comments on the
Supplemental EIR. The City Council also adopted a statement of
overriding considerations on the following environmental impacts :
increased traffic, degradation of air quality, loss of
agricultural and grazing land and loss of open space.
Please be advised that the City is only proposing to prezone
areas for industrial/business park uses which were provided in
the General Plan and subsequently reviewed by the Supplemental
EIR. It is Staff ' s position, that the Draft EIR, responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, the Supplemental EIR, responses to
comments on the Supplemental EIR , and statement of overriding
considerations is adequate for this prezoning and annexation
project.
Since potential development of the 660 acres of
industrial/business park property is unlikely for 5 years or
greater, any more detailed studies than which already exist could
very well be outdated by the time a specificl development project
was submitted, resulting in the need for an additional
environmental study. We believe it is more appropriate to
conduct the more detailed studies at the time a specific
development is proposed. In this manner, the environmental study
will be related to specific impacts and mitigation measures .
Please note that the General Plan contains the following policy:
"Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than
9 , 000 ( 22% ) of the potential jobs in the Extended Planning Area,
one or more Specific Area Plans shall be developed to designate
sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to
existing jobs and jobs being proposed and to demonstrate how
needed municipal services will be provided. "
Specific Responses
Your letter 'raised the following four issues : 1) the widening of
I-680 may be delayed due to a shortage of funds , 2 ) the City is
not participating in the funding of Interchange improvements in
the general area of the annexation, 3 ) Extension. of BART and
public transit to this area may be delayed and 4 ) Alternative
land uses in the annexation area should be explored. Listed
below is the City ' s response to these four issues .
No . 1 Traffic impacts of new development proposals in the
annexation area would be more of an impact on 1-580 than I-680 .
The Route Concept Report prepared by CalTrans recommends that 1-
580 be widened to 10 lanes between Vasco Road east of Livermore
and I-680 . Since auxiliary lanes are already planned between
Santa Rita Road and I-680 , the combined effect of the plans and
the recommendation could be to widen the freeway to a total of 12
lanes west of Santa Rita - Dougherty Road and 10 lanes easterly.
Irrespective of the proposed improvements to I-580 , the
Supplemental EIR states that: "Development of all Business Parks
within the Tri-Valley should be monitored and intensity reduced,
uses shifted or development delayed unless traffic capacity is
available . " All new development projects in the area to be
annexed will have a detailed traffic analysis conducted to ensure
unacceptable traffic situations do not occur.
l
No . 2 - Funding of the Interchange Improvements in the general
vicinity of the area to be annexed are directly related to the
development activity in Pleasanton . As specific development
projects are submitted in the area to be annexed, ( riot likely
within the next 5 years ) traffic mitigation fees for offsite
improvements will probably be required. These mitigation fees
may be used to construct additional improvements or reimburse for
nstructed.
improvements tha have already been co
t
No . 3 - If BART is not constructed, improved BART feeder service
is likely to result in a comparable diversion of traffic .
No . 4 - The issue of jobs and housing is discussed on pages 10 ,
11, and 12 of the Supplemental EIR . A jobs/housing 'balance is
likely to result only from a Valley-wide system of determining
"fair-shares" . The Supplemental EIR states that Once each
jurisdiction' s jobs/housing responsibilities are established, it
would be possible to make additions to the housing supply a
condition of approval of business park approval . Business park
approval could require commitment of a specific quantity of land
or a specific site to housing .
We have also included the responses to comments to your 3/8/84
letter which has since been adopted by the City Council .
We appreciate your comments on this proposal . If you have any
further questions , please contact Tom DeLuca at 829-4916 .
Sincerely,
v
Laurence L . Tong,
Planning Director
LTT/j
CITY OF DUBLIN
Development SCrViCes Planning'Zoning 829.4916
P.O. Box 23.10 Building & Safety 829-OS22
Dublin, CA 9-1568 June 6 , 1985 Engineering,'PtiNic Works 529.4'916
Yvonne San Jule
ABAG
p . 0. Box 2050
Oakland, California 94604
RE: PA 85-018 , Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and Annexation
Dear Ms . San Jule
The City has received your comments dated 5/3/85 regarding the
prezor.ing and annexation of the publicly-owned properties west of
Tassajara Road.
General Response
The initial EIR prepared for the General Plan was done in
February 1984 . Following a series of public hearings held by the
Citv Council , and a request by Alameda County, an additional 660
acres in the extended planning area was designated for
industrial/business park use . As a result of this modification,
a Supplemental EIR was prepared, which examined the effects of
the proposed plan changes on traffic , jobs/housing balance, and
air quality. Following a review period on the Supplemental EIR,
the City Council at a public hearing adopted a final EIR which
consisted of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, the supplement to the EIR, and responses to comments on the
Supplemental EIR. The City Council also adopted a statement of
overriding considerations on the following environmental impacts :
increased traffic, degradation of air quality, loss of
agricultural and grazing land and loss of open space.
Please be advised that the City is only proposing to prezone
areas for industrial/business park uses which were provided in
the General Plan and subsequently reviewed by the Supplemental
EIR . It is Staff ' s position, that the Draft EIR, responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, the Supplement EIR, responses to
comments on the Supplement EIR and statement of overriding
considerations is adequate for this prezoning and annexation
project .
Since potential development of the 660 acres of
industrial/business park property is unlikely for 5 years or
greater, any more detailed studies than which already exist could
very well be outdated by the time a specific development project
was submitted, resulting in the need for an additional
environmental study. We believe it is more appropriate to
conduct the more detailed studies at the time a specific
development is proposed. In this manner, the environmental study
will be related to specific impacts and mitigation measures .
Please note that the General Plan contains the following policy;
"Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than
9 , 000 ( 22% ) of the potential jobs in the Extended Planning Area,
one or more Specific Area Plans shall be developed to designate
sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to
existing jobs and jobs being proposed and to demonstrate how
needed municipal services will be provided. "
Specific Responses
You raised three issues : 1) Alternative land . uses (housing)
should be considered, 2 ) the effects of proposed and existing
projects in nearby communities should be explored and 3 ) Income
levels with job growth should be considered. Listed below is the
Citv ' s response to these three issues :
No . 1 and 2 - The Jobs/Housing issue is discussed on pages 10 ,
11, and 12 of the -Supplemental EIR. As you are aware, there is
no Tri-Vallev wide system of determining or enforcing "fair
snares" of housing or industrial development. Until each
agencies ' job/housing "responsibilities" are established, if
ever, these may never be a jobs/housing balance . Dublin, with
lower per household income than Pleasanton, cannot be expected to
volunteer to accept more market-minimum housing so that
Pleasanton can devote similarity situated land to employment if
both cities believe jobs are fiscally advantageous and no near-
term adverse environmental differences are evident. In the
future, it may be possible to make additions to the housing
supply a condition of business park project approval. More
detailed refinements of this issue, and the effects of
developments in nearby communities, will be done when specific
projects are submitted. Since development within the area to be
annexed is not likely to occur within 5 years, new information,
new projects , and new /legislation may deal with jobs/housing
balance . Any projections or more detailed studies done at this
time would likely be outdated when specific project are proposed.
No . 3 - The issue of income levels is a socio-economic impact
which was not intended to be covered in the Supplemental EIR .
This issue may or may not be considered in conjunction with
specific development projects .
We appreciate your comments
call Tom DeLuca proposal . you have any
further questions pl ease
Sincerely,
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
LTT/j
CITY OF (DUBLIN
Development Services Pl tinning.%Zoning 829-49 10"
P.O. Box 23 l0 Buildino & Safety 5:.9 OS'
Dublin. CA 9��Sci,�
June 6 , 1985 Engineeriny,'PuiAC Worlcs S^_9:!tl
Mr. Milton Feldstein
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109
RE: PA 85-018 , Dublin Public Lands Prezoning and Annexation
Dear Mr. Feldstein:
The City has received your comments dated 5/2/85 regarding the
prezoninc and annexation of the publicly-owned properties west of
Tassajara Road.
General Response
The initial EIR prepared ' for the General Plan was done in
February 1984 . Following a series of public hearings held by the
City Council , and a request by Alameda County, an additional 600
acres in the extended planning area was designated for
industrial/business park use . As a result of this modification a
Supplemental EIR was prepared, which examined the effects of the
proposed plan changes on traffic, jobs/housing balance, and air
auality. Following a review period on the supplemental EIR, the
City Council at a public hearing adopted a final EIR which
consisted of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, the Supplement to the EIR, and responses to comments on the
Supplemental EIR. The City Council also adopted a statement of
overriding considerations on the following environmental impacts :
Increased traffic, degradation of air quality, loss of
agricultural and grazing land and loss of open space.
Please be advised that the City is only proposing to prezone
areas for industrial/business par's uses which were provided in
the General Plan and subsequently reviewed by the Supplemental
EIR . It is Staff ' s position, that the Draft EIR, responses to
comments on the Draft EIR, the Supplement EIR, responses to
comments on the Supplement EIR and statement of overriding
considerations is adequate for this prezoning and annexation
project .
.7T..., 1. ..� � �'� ,1���
1 } 13
Since potential development of the 660 acres of
industrial/business park property is unlikely for 5 years or
greater, any more detailed studies than which already exist could
very well be outdated by the time a specific development project
was submitted, resulting in the need for an additional
environmental study . we believe it is more appropriate to
conduct the more detailed studies at the time a specific
development is pro.posed. In this manner, the environmental study
will be related to specific impacts and mitigation measures .
Specific Responses
You have raised two issues with respect to this project; 1)
Potential carbon.. monoxide problems , and 2) the desire to have a
quantitative analysis of air pollution impacts of the 660 acres
of business/park industrial property.
Concerning item No. 1 , please refer to page 6 of the Draft EIR .
Carbon monoxide (CO) levels within the Dublin area are not a
function of development in Dublin alone, but reflect regional
traffic demand resulting from jobs and housing growth in the.
entire sub-region. The City is aware that carbon monoxide
problems presently exist in the Tri-Valley area and have the
potential to become worse as development occurs . However, carbon
monoxide problems should lessen with time as cleaner cars come
into use, CO standards are enforced and the motor vehicle
implementation and maintenance program is implemented. In the
future , your district may wish to establish a monitoring station
in Dublin so that air quality data is more complete and accurate.
Again, please be advised that no projects are being approved by
the prezoning and annexation. New development proposals will be
recuired to have an air quality analysis prior to project
approval .
Concerning the second issue you raised, it is Staff ' s position
that a quantitative analysis of the non-localized air quality
effects of land use decisions is beyond the capability or logical
initiative of individual local governments . The 1982 Bav Area
Air Quality Plan and the update now being prepared establish a
comprehensive program for achievement and maintenance of air
quality standards . The proposed expansion of the business park
designation in the Extended Planning Area would not affect
implementation of these programs if it would not attract
activities that otherwise would locate outside the Bay Area. The
EIR adopted by the City on the General Plan states "Reduce
development ` intensity if air quality model indicates need" . The
City will not be able to prepare a quantitative analysis of air
quality effects until a future time when probable uses are
determned.
We appreciate your comments on this project. If you have any
further questions please contact Tom DeLuca at 829-4916 .
Sincerely,
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
LLT/j
RESOLUTION NO. 11-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Citv of Dublin has prepared a
comprehensive , long-term general plan for the physical development
of the City, to be known as the Dublin General Plan; and
WHEREAS; the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) , together with the State guidelines and Citv environmental
regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared;
and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ,
including a Supplement, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified that the final
EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, -the EIR indicates four significant
environmental imcacts related to the following subjects :
r
1 . Increased traff i-c
2 . Degradation of air cuality
3 . Loss of agricultural and crazing land
a _ Loss of cpen s-,-ace ; and
WHEREAS, the City_ Council- did hold a public hearing on
the General Plan and EIR on Felbruary 11, 1983; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was civen
in all respects as required by lay::
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council hereby adopts the following findings and statement of
overriding considerations regarding significant environmental
e=_acts of the Dublin General Plan:
1. Increased traffic : unacceptable levels of service
are antcipated on I-580 , I-680, Dublin Boulevard and San
Ramon Road, and Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road.
Findings : The traffic impacts on I-580 and I-680
are under CalTrans jurisdiction and beyond control
of the City. The traffic impacts on Dublin
Boulevard are anticipated even after feasible
imorovements are made by the City.
2 . Degradation of air quality: Carbon monoxide
standards may be violated at times during the year .
Findings : air cuality standards are set by the
Federal Government and the State of California .
The B_v Area Air Quality Maintenance District,
California Air Resources Board, and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission wort to maintain and
improve air quality . The Ci__i does not have a
major role in air quality regu?aticn .
3 . Lo=s of agricultural and grazing land: Urban
development_ will rzsuLt in unavoidable adverse impacts
or. adjcining agricultural ooerations and discontinuatior.
of agricultural and grazing land.
Findings : Urbanization as proposed in the General
Plan makes mitigation infeasible . Elimination of
business park and residential development has been
rejected because the area is as well suited to the
proposed use as other sites on which development has
been proposed or commenced.
4 . Loss of open space : Urban development will
significantly affect the visual quality of the open
space .
Findings : Urbanization as proposed in the General
Plan makes mitigative infeasible. Elimination of
business park and residential development has been
rejected because the area is as well suited to the
proposed use as other sites on which development
has been proposed or commenced.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of
February 1985 .
AYES : Councilmembers Fegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt,
Vcnheeder and Mayor Snyder
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
y,ayor .%
J /
i ..
nn ?-�!1
I
AGENDA STATE,tENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 11, L.,d5
SUBJECT : Prezoning and annexation of Camp Parks, Tassajara
Creek Regional Park and County-owned property.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1 - Map of affected area;
2 - General Plan designations of affected area;
3 - Letter from National Aeronautics and Space Administration
dated 12/17/84 ;
4 - Letter from East Bay Regional Park District dated 11/21/84 ;
5 - Letter from Federal Bureau of Prisons dated 11/5/8=1 ;
6 - Letter from Department of the Army dated 11/2/84 ;
7 - Letter from County Administrator dated 10/30/84 ;
8 - Letter from Department of Air Force dated 2/11/85
RECOhI1iENDATION:
1 - Hear Staff Report
- Question Staff
- Deliberate
4 - Determine if lands owned by Alameda County should be
included in the annexation
r= tc prepare an Initial Study to determine if the
5 - Direc. S�.a�� _
General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR will adequately serve
as the environmental document for this prezoning and
annenxation
6 _ A _ to i%itiate prezoning proceedings which
uthorize Staff
would prezone the public lard area designated in the General
Plan to Agricultural and both industrial areas to M-1, with
an overlay zone which would require a Planned Development to
be approved before any development proceeds .
7 - Direct Staff to begin annexation proceedings for Camp Parks ,
Tassajara Creek Regional Park and the County-owned
prOperty.This will involve meetings with affected Federal
and County agencies and Special Districts to determine
service needs and responsibilities for services ; working
with ABAG to develop a city services and financial plan; and
preparing associated reports , maps and legal descriptions .
8 - Authorize and appropriate from reserves in the amount of
' $106 , 700 to cover the costs associated with the annexation.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
1 - City Engineer costs to prepare maps and legal descriptier.s
$2 , 500
2 - ABAG fee for a possible study of service demands and City
costs for providing services $12 , 800
3 - LA_CO and State filin, fees $1, 400
Staff time
4 - Pla^ r. = pr'oc°_
_n5 -
budc`t transfer of $L6 , 700 from reserves would be required.
1. COPIES TO:
ITZ.Ili
ATI�ACHMtNT ' 5
as
rs
DdSCRIPTIO�l : At its meeting of Octob S, 1994 , the
Dublin City Council voted unanimously to prc. .d with the
annexation Of those lands within the Parks Reserves Training Area
and Tassajara Creek Regional Park . The City Council authorized
the initiation of this process by first securing the consent of
those government agencies who own land in these areas . Letters
were sent explaining the City ' s position and requesting consent -
for annexation of these areas to the following property owners :
1) U .S . Department of the Army
2) U.S . Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons
3 ) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
4 ) U. S . Department Of the Air Force
5 ) East Bay Regional Park District
Since October of 1984 , the City has received varying responses
from these various property owners (See attached) .
In summary, both the Army and Air Force have indicated their
intention to process our request. The U.S. Department of Justice
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have
indicated their support of this annexation of their properties .
East Bay Regional District has declined to take a position and
has indicated that the District would neither support nor oppose
the City ' s annexation of this area.
Since it may sti 1}
be some time until the City receives a
ent cf the Army and the U.S.
response from the U.S . Department Department Of the Air Force with respect to their review of the
i
Cty ' s request for annexation, and s-4 nce the state law governing
1y protests and their impact on
annexations addresses On -
00 ; _ Staff would propose that the City
annexation proc�_d_ncs , -
ccramence processing the annexation O: ti«52 L:OCe 'tleS
As 1T:-i -ate'= in the tentat_�ie scnecule L o r th-
lmmediately . ^ �rOC°SS COL1C take
:mDlelO � the mne:, -1cr , the nne: a=1C
C
uD to six months be=ore a protest hearing would . held. This
period should Site these fe^e_al agencies su,=Ic,ent t�^e to
review and respond to the City ' s request.
In addition, it is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council
consider adding those lands owned by the County of Alameda to the
Annexation proposal so that . the proposal would include all
publicly owned lands to the east Of the City. It is Staff ' s
belief that consolidating these properties into one annexation
proposal might provide a better forum for discussing roadway
access to the east and also the County of Alameda' s ultimate
plans for its property and how those plans may or may not be
impacted by the City ' s annexation of this area.
If the City Council is in agreement, the City should initiate
annexation proceedings at this time . ,
The balance of- this report lists the various issues and options
associated with the annexation of Camp Parks ( 1, 283 acres) ,
Tassajara Creek P.ecicnal Park ( 457 acres) , -and the Cou.-y-evened
property east c.` Dcucherty Rcac and west of Ta=_sz;ara Rozd (°51
acres) , which the City Cou::cil needs to consider. Fu_ther, the
report identi_-°s City r°scurces recui__c tc undert—Y-e tie
annexation proceed-nSs ar.14 lists a tll.ne sc-edule to
complete the anne ation .
The s�eci�; c pro ec z would i nc;ud? the pr°_zcn'n and annexation
o° accrocimateLy 2 , 636 acr es , roughly 4 .2 sc. m_les, o:
publicly-owned pr0_ercy . Tna Drocosed' a.n.ne::az_cn 1S within t:.e
City ' s Sphere Oz Influence Drev curly approvecd by LaFCO.
Staff 'has identified three principal issues associated with this
annexation: environmental review, prezoning and the annexation
itself . Each issue , and the various options associated with that
issue, are discussed below.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The prezoning and annexation is classified as a "project" under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as such
requires an environmental document to be prepared. The
environmental document could be one of the following :
- A Negative Declaration
- An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
- A Supplement to the General Plan EIR
- The General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR
A Negative Declaration is not feasible considering the size and
scope ofQthe
project, which would double the size of the city.
Further, a Negative Declaration could lead to challenges to the
annexation on the basis of an inadequate environmental review.
An EIR could be prepared, but .would provide no more information
than what is already contained in the General Plan EIR,
particularly since no specific development projects are proposed
in this area at this time .
A Supplement to the EIR could be prepared but this approach has
the same problem as noted immediately above.
Staff would recommend that the General Plan EIR and, Supplemental
_ L t .is
EIR be used as the environmental
document nor : s p.o;e c t
allows a city to use an E=R prepared for a previous project i=
the C' rCUi15=a^.0°S cf t::�' prc�ect are essentially the same . In
this case , the prezoning o= t e property does no
p result in env
dif sere-^-c iTCacts t::a:l those which may occ::= from the General
plan desirnaticns . The annexation itself will not have any
adverse environmental impacts . Detailed environmental reviews
will be conducted as specific projects are proposed in this area.
If the City Council determines to proceed with this approach,
Staff would conduct an Initial Study of the prezoning and
would
annexation, after which a notice y prepared which
City
describes the project and states that the plans to use the
General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR as the environmental
document for this project. This notice begins a 45-day review
period for affected agencies and individuals. At -the end of the
review period, staff prepares responses to comments and schedules
a hearing before
the Planning Commission and City Council to make
a formal determination that the environmental document is in
compliance with CE^4A.
PREZION I
One of LALCO ' s policies is to require a City to prezone proze=ty
prior to submittir.c a ceciticr, to annex teY=itorl. The purpose
of this policy is to maKe it c'_ea= to L:. ec
Co, a=: teo' acencies
and individuals t`.^e City is future intent for the subject area.
T;:e prezoning a'sc establishes tiro zoning t:;at will be effective
at such time the annexation is completed.
Staff has ldent=fled the folk'. ina si cct'_ons for the prezoning :
1-
prezone the site to Public Lands, Business ,
Par'.:/Industrial acrd Business . Park'/Industrial : Low al 01,
e t�1,2 p;�lis Lanes area to air-cult•=ra' and the
2 Izdusr_ _al areas to m-' , Ligh: in'sust_ _al
3- prezone the Public Lands area to Agricui..ural , and the
Business Park/Industrial and the Business
Park/Industrial Low Coverage areas to an interim
ordinance .
4- prezone the entire area to an interim ordinance. ,
5- request LAFCO waive the prezoning requirement.
6- prezone the Public Lands area to Agricultural and
prezone both industrial areas (Business Park/Industrial
and Business Park Industrial : Low Coverage) to M-1 ,
with an overlay that states no development shall be
allowed in this area unless a Planned Development is
approved.
The disadvantage associated with option one is that the City does
not presently have a Public Lands Zoning District or a Business
Park Low Coverage District. These ordinances will have to be
developed separately or as part of the comprehensive revision of,
the Zoning Ordinance . The City Council could delay the
annexation until these zoning districts were developed, but this
could be a lengthy process .
L
The disadvantage associated with option two is that the eCistint
r!-1 ordinance is much too broad for the Low Coverage and Business
Park Industrial areas . The Scarlett Court area is reflective oz
M-1 uses .
Octicn three is a valid option because it enables the city to
adopt an interim ordinance for both industrial areas . In essence,
ludes Cr substantially restricts mo
an interim ordinance prec
uses within a designated area until a specific crdir.ance is
State law allows a city to adoct an interim ordinance,
adopted. t =our-fi"hs vote o= the le7?sla:i :_
provided it is done by a
bodv. The interim ordinance is initially valid for 45 days and
can+ be subsecuentiv extended fC= ten months and 15 days and then
acain for one more yea= , far a fetal o� t••jo years . Whil- the ne'd
ordinance is being adcp1tec, the city could process individual
o-- proposals W11 a Conditional Use Permit. T^e
de ve_o_men«
Conditional Use Permit process would ensure that the prOposea
f
lict
development would not con With the future ordinance. IL a
specific ordinance was not adopted within the two year period,
the City Council could zone the Business Park/Industrial areas to
M-1, with a PD overlay.
Option. four would result in adopting an interim ordinance for the
entire area. This approach would give the city two years to
develop specific zoning ordinances for the Public Lands area and
both Industrial areas and Would allow certain uses to proceed
with a Conditional Use Permit.
Option five would result in, a formal request by the city 'to
aive the requirement to prezone the anne:ced
request LAFCO to w
area. This request, if approved, would eliminate the problem of
prezoning for the near future , but the city would be faced with
the zoning issue after the 'annexation was completed. If the City
did net prezone the property, an interim zoning ordinance would
almost have to be adooted when the annexation was completed. T:e
waiving of the prezoninc recuiremenL would not result in a
shcrter tire period to ccm lete the annexation. The reason tha_
time_ would not be saved is because the prezoning process could; he
done in con uncticn wic.h the . envircnmental review, which has a
� a period. Prezonn the property at this tire would
43-day rey__�•� -
clearly establish the City ' s intent for this area and would avoid
the need to have an interim ordinance once the annexra*_:on was
completed.
Staff recommends that the City Council choose option sir, which
would include the prezor. ; _q cf the public lands prope-rties to
l the usi-neS3 Park/1ndustr24aI and Eusines-
�3r' /Indusal a1nLow Ca•✓erag' areas to M-1. A n overlay distr_. .
would be e= tablis^ed in both business Park/industrial areas w^_� �
l
would r•acui rc a Planned C`Ve0cment
(PD) to be approved for all
ne,d d2vel opment prcocsa:s . T'- Planned Develccrent process wot:'_�
-4- -
ensure that development is consistent with the ibjectives and
policies for the business park/industrial areas as identified in
the General Plan. Further refinements would be done to the
zoning districts after the property was annexed. In the long
_ term, it may be best to develop a specific plan in this area to
further implement the policies of the General : Plan. The
Agricultural designation for Camp Parks, Tassajara Creek Regional
Park and ' the northerly portion of the county property is
consistent with the existing county designation of Agricultural .
It is a fairly common practice for cities to designate large
federal facilities or parks as agricultural. Camp Parks, being a
federal . facility, is exempt from any local zoning, environmental
or building, regulations .
ANNEXATION
At the end of the 45 day review period for the environmental
document, Staff would schedule a public hearing before the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the environmental
document, prezoning and annexation . The City Council would then
make a formal determination on the same items as well as a
property tax distribution agreement. (There may be no property
taxes to distribute since the annexed area would only involve
public lands that are typically not on the tax rolls) .
If the City Council determines to proceed with the annexation,
Staff would prepare an application for LAFCO. That application
would include , but not be limited to, a plan for city services, a
financial plan for providing said services , legal descriptions ,
maps , and council resolutions .
The plan for services and f inancial plan will have to be
developed over the next three or four months with the Federal
Agencies at Cam-! Park- , the Easy. Bay Regional Park District, the
County and the special service districts , principally Dublin San
Ramon Services District .
A-fter the amolicatlon is submitted to LAFCO, a determination is
made as to. whether the ap=licati'on is complete . If found to be
complete, LAFCO holds a public hearing where it determines
w;.ether to approve, deny, or modify the anr_exaticn.
If LAFCO approves the application, it will refer the application
back to the City to set and hold a protest hearing. At a
regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council would
adopt a resolution which sets forth the date, time and place for
a protest hearing. At the protest hearing, the .City Council
would have to terminate the annexation if 50% or more of the
registered voters protest. (Staff has tentatively identified 39
registered voters within the Camp Parks area) . If 25% or more or
the registered voters or 25% or more of the property owners who
own 25% or more of the assessed value of land protest, the City
would have to hold an election before the territory could be
annexed. The election would be held only within the area to be
annexed. After an election, the territory is annexed if a
majority of votes favor annexation.
If a majority protest is not registered, the City 'Council orders
t1-Ie territory annexed and a Certificate of Completion is filed
with the State .
RcaCC?CE NEEDS
Tho City Council should be a-ware that this project will result in
the committment o.
both time and r sourc°s . The City Engineer
will have to prepare the maps and legal descriptions for the area
to be annexed. The City Engineer has estimated it will cost
apprcximateiy $2 , 500 . 00 to co,,,plete these materials.
Staff has met with the Association of Bay Area Governments (?BAG}
to determine if their mcdels could be of any use in projecting
f'-tu=e ser'vic'e d'mands or costs For the anr,e:.ed area. It does
/ a:p_ar their models would be usetu'_ in providing necessary
informaticn . The estimate-' cost of that st :d:; is $12, 800 .00 .
-5-
will require a signifi� amount of the
Finally, the projec, re q
Staff time . �e project will involve se—ral months of
Planning
meetings, research, c� dination and report writi
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
March 4-7
-Prepare City Council Staff Report
March 11-15 -Prepare Initial Study
March 18 -Send out environmental review notices and
begin 45 day review period
May 2 -Environmental Review period ends
Mav 7'.. _Nc,,tice Plannir•, Commission Hearing of
• �;�• 20th
r1ay 14 -Notice City Council hearing of May 27th
May 14-17 -Prepare Planning Commission Staff Report
May 20 -Planning Cocru-aission hearing on annexation
May 20-23
_prepare City Council Staff Report
May 27 -City Council hearing on annexation
Mav 28-June 7 -Prepare application for LAFCO
June 10 -Submit LAFCO application
July 17 -LAFCO public hearing on annexation request
July 22 -C?ty Counc, l sets the date, time, and place
for a protest hearing
August 19 -Cit•✓ Council holds protest hearing and
orders the territory annexed-, or orders an
nas
electior, or terminates the procee d-
It should be note,'- that this schedule represents an extremely
tight timeline . The schedule assumes that there will be no
unforseen obstacles and no significant opposition to the
environmental review or annexation .
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to:
1 - Determine if lands owned .by Alameda County should be
included in the annexation
2 - Direct Staff to prepare on Initial Study to determine if the
General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR will adequately serve
as the environmental document for this prezoning and
annexation
3 - Authorize Staff to initiate prezoning prcceedincs which
would pre-Zone the public land area designated in the General.
Plan to A,ric::l`ural and both industrial aYeas to N-1, with
an oveY'_av zone ywhica would require a Planned Development to
be approve� d before any d`velocment p_cceecs .
_
4 - Direct Staff to becyn annexation proceec_ngs for Camp Park-s '
Tassajara Creel Regional Park and the Count.-c,.-jr.ed property .
This will involve meetings with affected. Fed-ral and County
agencies and Special Districts to determne service needs
working with ABAG to
and responsibilities Lon se_v_�-es ;
develop a citi services and financial plan; and cre_aar,::c
_s maps and iecal desc__p_ . icns
5 - Aut-o_ i ..a and ap_ roc_ _.ate from. reserves in the a^cunt c=
$ _6 70� to cp :er t---se ccs is associated w: _h the a.^.r.e::a=for, .
-o- -
1 .�!
Nation R C E r D
N3(10(131 Aeronautics and • .
Space Administration
•.
• •• •
Ames Research Center DEC 2 U 198 .'•� � ��
Niollett Field,Calilornia 94035 . t,�l c.--- Lv.^5 '
CITY OF DUGLIN
December 11, 19S4 -
,Iy 10 AIM Of: AA:241-11
Mr. Richard Ambrose
Cit Manager
City of Dublin • . ,_ - - .. :c1.= �� .• .
2340 ..
' P bl inB�CA 94568. •. r . . •��- . ..- .. • , - . -.. -
Du
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
to your letter of October 31, 19845 TrainingnAreaneNASA Ames
In response Y at the Parks Reserve Force
NASA owned property our annexation process of this prop
Research Center has no objections to y
Currently, there is one general purpose storage warehouse (600' X 200`
erty. Cu located within the fenced boundaries of the U. S. Army
on 8.46 acres of hand, a vided by the Dublin-San Ramon Service District. All
Camp Parks. Sewage is pro
er services , e.g. ) fire, ref and disposal services are pro-
use collection
vid Department the Army.
vided by the Dep of
understood there will be no direct costs with
Jeanne Clemson,
It is u _
Should there be additional al�s�6�a-5140.
Real Property Officer, at ( • )
Since lY,
Louis H. Brennwald
Director of Administration
3j it
IT 1� c
C E I V(,.r)
f BOAPO OF 01PECTORS
WALTER COSTA,Vres.a.s
'
NOV 2 ,` TEO RAOKE.YK a Pesde H
l T'") `' .i JOHN J.LEAVITT•SK'e"yT
Eas1 •I'l�`� ••�i,'• LYNN80-4EPS.Tle~"
ll l✓ .J -� 1� �T• �,uRr LEE:EFFEPOS
1 �� } C!l i CY 1.«,..1•� HAPLAN KESSEL
e�iol�clt Park D• l IOMNOOONNEII
a
RIC AMC TPIJOEAU
11500 SKYLINE BOUIEVAFO.Or>K(�1�10.CALIFOFNIA 9.1619 TELEPHONE(415)531-9300 »Ot^NyVanKer
November 21, 19S4
Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager .`:..• ..= `:. . .
City of Dublin ' .
P. 0. Box 2340
Dublin C3 94502
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
o v of November 20, Directors of the East Bay Regional par's
At its meeting
District reviewed your request to our consent to have you annex the area
known as the Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Both the Board and the
staff are sympathetic with your desire to annex the Camp Parks Reserve
Force Training Area.
We are on notice from the U. S. Army that they intend to "recapture" the
ears ago which is now the Tassajara Creek Regional
land donated to us many y Assistant Secretary of the Ar_ly Paul
park. In fact, I met with DeI w
Jchnson on this subjecwhen
Counselor EdhMeese on•the same�subjec*_S ago.
I also met with ?residential _
we have been seeking is an ef�ective compromise by which the Army
ate candsaT{e
back the property previously donated and reimburse us for p. lands
h funds into -
purchased in the area indtothereae,atedaccomplishthissweneedboth tge
another regional pares and the U. S. Army.
cooperation of Alameda County
As a result, we find ourselv
Creek in a bit of a dilemma. We may well hoach no
jurisdiction over Tassajara oeSRedithat werde
LAFCO. Hence the fertourtjudgmentain this
Board h and also to Alameda County.
matter to the U. S. Army : , :•. _
to discuss
We would be happy this further with you if You so desire. .:: :� :•.;.• .
Cordial�ly�,
Richard C. Trudeau
General Manager
RCT/bd
C-2 n,,}
I 1 A I, 1 1 .. 71 !
�..� U.S. Department of JL .' .
Federal Bureau of Prisons '
Federal correctional Institution
P.O. Buz 366 [, L' i V E D
Pleasanton, CA 9-1166
NOV 7
Ciif C: fl:;ni'i•l
Ncvenber 5, 1984
• ... , p.&,ard Ambrose
. • City of Dublin . -- - . . . .::- _ ':' ^ .• - _ . "•; . ....
P.O. Eo:c 2340
Dublin, C11, 94566
Rg: Anne-`cation
Dear Mr. Ambrose:
31 1984, cone°-^i*:c the Citv_ 's inte'-est
Tharp you for your letter of October t, ,ition.
�e Fe,eral Corre(= ior'P- Ills�t
in anne:"_rg Ca*Ip Parks and t"
in anreva'=or. d scu`sions since the early 1980's
I rave been involved and s�' ,ors,
first came up. In disc:ssi ors with Iry sy�==-
when to s::nje rose anre rats or. or this prcpe_ '_�. We alts_^_cam?
we rave agree to rot oF_ ubli cly agr
the Count a C�rnu
_ss- ners' hearing
sea e 3-4 years a5o a^d p
at that time to not oppose anne.�tic I.
be no direct costs asscciate with this action.
I l rderstand t:,-,ere will the Dublin--San gzmon Szrvic-.s District for se.;age
We are already se-,7e ,_.. over to Zone 7 water in the near future-
services, are rcping to conve_ o Fire
se_*vices, and provided by cunt"ac` with the Camp Pares
Our lccal fire protection is
trash services are cur=e-*qtly uT'�e �ntract witz the ---
Derartre_nt. Our
Oakland Scavenger Ccn-anY- • .
Unless t:ere is a t=^-g
ible financial or legal impact with annexation, we
Stand ready to cooFerate ]Sl Your
imve to anre.Y this a-e- S%ottld there .
�nsiderations,' I would retest you contact -
�%,��•:-'�'.• •.-.� cost or jurisdictional
me f further discussions
Visions
or .
rcerely,
les A. Turrho,
• Wanders
cc: Cgis Fields C Z �v+ -31 11I `�
3' y Pcaell /
C.acnp Parks (' 1
Copt. Wri7 t.. , i: L �i I
Y L' D
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NOV
PAR RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA _ NO Vr J ISC,
O'
POST OFFICE B0:(00
DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568 CITY CI=
Nov 2 embLr , 1984
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Office of the Post Commander '
SUBJECT: Annexation of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
: -
city -of Dublin 101
6500 Dublin Blvd, Suite
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Sirs:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 31, 1984.
i for action. I cannot give you an estimate
Your letter for
annexation of f Parks Reserve Forces Training Area as
been forscarded thru Army chant ,act
as to when a final decision will be ma ect to annexation by a
p the Army does not obj T
As I have stated be-ore, however, the approving authority to you-
city bordering an izstallaticn; f the Army level.
action will be the Department o
Sincerely,
RI'
Charts R ' yo• t
Captain, .S.*Army
:..:: er
Acting Yost Command
G z
AC� �i� L �� 1
C -.:RECEIVED
i�,,;:,� N10V 5 ,19,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOd?;-lCrD::3l'�rl
STEPNEN A HAMILL
r.aaror�..r Cover•.o.....ar�•ro•
MEL HIND
October 30, 1984
�c�yr,•o...«.are•row
Commander, PresidiDEHofL San
eUtenantFrancisco
Colonel Tom Edgerton) -
Attention: AFZM . :94129
:San Francisco,' Ca. _
SUBJECT: Annexation of Camp Parks
Dear Colonel Edgerton: -'-
m understanding that the City of Dublin has requested the A Ily's
permission is y Parks to the City.
permission to annex Camp
On October 30, 1984, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in public
session d to oppose such an annexation., vote Since Camp Parks is currently in
the County's unincorporated area, the Board of Supervisors believes that the
as well as the County' s, best interests would be 52r
l ' served by leaving
Army' s, l If the Army intends to take an
camp Parks within County j urisdiction.
affirmative action on the City of Ddiscuss theumatterefurtherowbithathesArmy.
be provided with an opportunity to
I� is our request that you either refuse to take a position or that you reject
the City of Dublin's request to OVer the t u
governmental jurisdiction ofsCamp
between the City and the County
Parks. .
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss the matter further, I suggest
you contact Jerry Burke of my office.
Very truly yours,
.. .. _ •• - . . MEL RING = �.::� : _�° �- .. :,..
•. _ - - - • : - .. - • COUNTY ADMINISTRA70R . . .
MH/JB:ph Board of Supervisors
cc: Each member,
Colonel Sam Collins, presidia
Randy Beckett, Presidia
0238c
-; : A- 111 i1� 1
1221 OAK STREET SUITE 351 • OAKIANO CALIFORN1A ZAe12 IA131 e7A.4212
ENT OF THE AIR FORUc
_
HEAOOUARTERS AIR FORCE SATELLITE CONTROL FACILITY(AFSC)_`_ .
SUNNYVALE AIR FORCE STATION,PO BOX 8430 ,..•; ;
\ / SUNNYVALE,CALIFORNIA 94088-3430 .
11 FEbruary 1985 F ES 131985
CITY OF DUBLIN
Mr. Richard C. Alrhrose
Dublin City M2nager .
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, California 94568
:Dear ._Amoro
SP
Mr anreIcation`..reguest. _The ._ ..
:.:.:. .. • :- omatJ on concern ur
ing Yo
am still collecting inf T_ose anneation will be u7 tisately made by -.
decision to consent to or oP_
Uni.t_°3 S Imes Air Forc°. • However, these are a fE=a >:rore issLS •: '
-that must be addressed before a re�r`'is for�arded for t:eir action. � '. . .
y , C,^;�Llnt y services at the C;Rtli 1r_ications
Az)�e_nt1y, we are us 3-'19 fe�.J, i� am
Annex now. We have well water and a sent;c tank.
We do cur c�-n road mai*�-
rcvide cur oc�n fire p`ot=-tion and ser.iri t;� se'"rices. Ec�.�ever,
tenahce and p r s the sibility of provision of services by
we thick it necessa-r✓ tp adders FF your „ eats sb-ut the avail-
the City of D CcrS :e'�t_y, I ask for
ab l ty of:
a_ Police and fire pro ser rice•.=
b. a=_h and ga:b r oval
C. St±eet ma=-rit-anance
°i r =cession Last mcn}`�� one issue w� did not disc,:ss was city
jr, curt enccre d;-. si r orrih,^c°-s, or cxes. IT you have any, Please
established,' Pollution st-rya--st does ge-�a11y C=mly with 1 �''"1
se^r-4 me a apy. Sle federal Sn
mental standards.
as m tax,
T as I understo� y� P�ition, the City of DI�L'n h .
Fina-ly, o other c:s e which would i_*mact cn any construction or
fee, pest fee, that allation, whether by the 5ove*nme*�t or cont--actors.
other activity -
- If I am wrcr�g, let me lmcw. . ' e5y,. ns. .of .course,'•�•I invite _
I look forward to herrin5 from you ak�ut these qu '
you to ft�-ush any other infor>taticn,
such as D�lin's city grv�th Plan or other
1 e�cat=cn, which you carsider rele�rant. I ra_� l
benefits to be derived from this ann - -
be reached at (408) 752-3587.
Since-re'-Y
_ �GL13FD PF`ZI�`�GTC`1, M3, ri
US?l
Fsst Star,
judge �GICG=t°
MICHAr-,L R. NAVE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1220 HOWARD AVENUE. SUITE 250
BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA MAILING AODRESS_
94010-4211 P. O. Hex :0a
(.215) 348-7130 SUNLINOAME. CA 9.011.0208
MEMORANDUM R ,C IV ED'
TO: LARRY TONG i I?H5
FROM: MICHAEL R. NAVE DUBLIN PLANNING
DATE: July 31, 1985
RE: Zoning Contracts - County Property
If the Camp Parks/Santa Rita area is annexed to the
City, the question was raised as to whether the County would be
subject to the City' s zoning ordinance if the_County develops
its property in that area. The answer. .i no.
Government Code Sections 53090-53095 regulate the
right of one public body to subject buildings of another public
body within its boundaries to building and zoning ordinances.
It has been clearly held that county buildings do not have to
comply with city zoning ordinances. San Mateo v. Bartol,
(1960) , 184 CA2d 422; 7 CR 569; $0 Ops Atty Gen. 243 (1962) .
And it makes no difference if the building is used for a
proprietary function. "Cities and counties are mutually exempt
from each other 's building and zoning ordinances, whether they
are acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity. " (40 Ops
Atty Gen. 243 , 244 . )
Although the land and the uses of the land by the
County may not be regulated by the City, the City may require
the County to submit plans to the City Planning Commission as to
the location and purpose of any public buildings to be
constructed on such property. Government Code Section 65402 (b) ;
California Zoning Practice, CEB, Section 8 .59 . However, the
submission of plans to the Planning Commission would clearly be
only advisory, and the County could disregard any actions taken
—may'-EY-id P anning Commission. Government Code Section 53095;
37 Ops Atty. Gen. 89 (1961) .
MRN/jm
ATIAURMEN t A-
WM 'gh
M E M O R A N D U M
TO : City Council
FRO : rty Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Camp Parks and Environs Annexation
DATE : September 18 , 1985
In accordance - with previous direction given by the City Council , the
services of Gruen Gruen + Associates have been secured for the purpose of
performing a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the proposed Camp Parks and
Environs Annexation. The purpose of this study is to determine the net
fiscal impact of annexing Camp Parks and environs (approximately 2 , 700
acres) to the City of Dublin. Additional analysis was performed to
determine the impact of the annexation on the Dublin San Ramon Services
District .
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study undertakes fiscal projections for the City of Dublin under three
scenarios :
1 . Fiscal condition with no annexation
2 . Fiscal condition with annexation, but no urban development
3 . Fiscal condition with annexation and 600 acres of new development in
the annexation area
The Study also considers the City' s Appropriation Limit as it is impacted
by the annexation scenarios .
The Study also undertakes fiscal projections for the Dublin San Ramon
Services District as it relates to fire protection in the annexation with
no development scenario and the annexation with development scenario .
The Study covers a period of 15 years beginning in Fiscal Year 1985-86 and
ending in Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
STUDY CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS
The following is a list of the major criteria and assumptions which were
established at the beginning of the Study :
1 . Operating and capital expenses which are directly offset by identified
revenues are not included in the Study .
2 . Most expenses are adjusted by an inflation factor of 6. 40 on an annual
basis . This inflation rate represents the average rate of inflation
over the last 10 years . In some cases , the increase in expenses
exceeded 6. 4% due to increases in the population, increased workload
or anticipated organizational changes which would increase the base
level of service . See Tables 2 and 3 .
3 . Revenues were adjusted by an inflation rate of 6. 4% or by increases in
population.
4. The City ' s reserve was set at approximately $11 ,400 , 000 in Fiscal Year
1988-89 and maintained at that level for the remainder of the study
period. This reserve level is based upon the amount of net spendable
revenues available after the completion of the City ' s 1983-88 Capital
Improvement Program. It ' s important to recognize that the purchasing
power of this reserve will be substantially less in the year 1999-2000
than 1988-89•
5 . On an annual basis , those revenues remaining after operating
expenditures are available for capital expenditures .
Page 1
6. The interest rate on the City ' s investments was assumed to be 10% for
the study period.
7 . Revenues were estimated conservatively. No state or federal grant
program funds were included after Fiscal Year 1987-88 with the
exception of the Transportation Development Act Funds . Only known
reimbursements from developers and other agencies were included .
8. For the annexation area, development of the 600 acres of County
property would not commence until 1990-1991 and would not be completed
until 2010-2011 . Therefore , only half of the property would be
developed within the time frame of the Study. It was also assumed
that 5% of the developed space would be occupied by retail uses and
the remaining 95% of the property would be evenly divided between
office space and industrial space .
9. The City does not assume DSRSD ' s services .
FISCAL CONDITION OF THE CITY ASSUMING NO ANNEXATION
As shown in Table 1 (page 9 ) and in Table 16 (page 33 ) , the City would have
sufficient revenues to meet its operating expenses , maintain a reserve of
$11 , 366,930, and have $82 , 296, 526 available for capital expenditures during
the 15 year study period. The City ' s net spendable revenues also continue
to increase each year through the study period. At no time during the 15
year study period is it projected that the City' s proceeds of taxes will
exceed its Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit .
FISCAL CONDITION OF THE CITY ASSUMING ANNEXATION WITH NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE
ANNEXATION AREA
This scenario assumes that the City would annex the entire 2 , 700 acres and
that no portion of the annexation would be developed . The estimated
current population of the annexation area is 2 , 568 , including 1 ,900 inmates
at the Santa Rita County* Jail , 568 inmates at the Federal Prison and 100
military personnel and families .
If the City annexes this area, and there are no changes in the military ' s
jurisdiction over Camp Parks , it is anticipated that the following services
would need to be provided commencing in Fiscal Year 1986-87 :
Animal Control
Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Paratransit
Recreation
Over the 15 year study period , the operating costs for the annexation area
total $682 , 511 more than the City' s operating expenses with no annexation.
Revenues generated by the annexation area under the No Development Scenario
would come primarily from increased state subventions due to increased
population, and increates in license and permits . Over the 15 year study
period, the total revenues for the annexation area would be $1 , 575 ,492
greater than the City' s total revenues with no annexation. With this
scenario , a reserve of $11 ,420, 527 would be maintained and a total of
$892 ,981 in additional revenue would be available when compared with the No
Annexation Scenario during the 15 year study period.
As in the No Annexation Scenario , revenues from proceeds of taxes are not
projected to exceed the Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit during the study
period.
Page 2
FISCAL CONDITION OF THE CITY ASSUMING ANNEXATION WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THE
ANNEXATION AREA
This scenario assumes that development of the annexation area would
commence in 1990-91 and be one-half complete by the end of the study period
1999-2000 . A very conservative set of assumptions were used in this
scenario in that it was assumed that 95% of the development would be split
between office and industrial uses and only 5% of the space would be
developed as retail uses supportive of the business park development . No
hotels , auto dealerships or other high tax generating development are
assumed to be included in the development of the 600 acres on County
property.
This annexation would require increased services including :
Police Services
Animal Control
Traffic Signals
Street Lighting
Street Maintenance
Street Tree Maintenance
Street Landscape Maintenance
Paratransit Service
Vector Control
Recreation
Over the 15 year study period , the operating costs for the annexation area
are ,$5 , 257 , 762 greater than the City' s operating expenses with no
annexation.
Revenues generated by the Annexation With Development Scenario would come
primarily from the same sources as the Annexation With No Development
Scenario , plus added revenues from property taxes , sales taxes and
franchise fees . Over the 15 year study period , the total revenues for the
annexation area would be $5 , 520 , 095 greater than the City ' s total revenues
with no annexation. With this scenario , a reserve of $11 ,420 , 527 would be
maintained and a total of $262 , 333 in additional revenue would be available
when compared with the No Annexation Scenario during the 15 year study
period.
As with the other two scenarios , revenues from the proceeds of taxes are
not projected to exceed the City ' s Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit
during the 15 year study period.
FISCAL CONDITION OF DSRSD ASSUMING ANNEXATION WITH NO DEVELOPMENT
Based on responses from DSRSD Staff, the City ' s annexation would impact the
District ' s provision of fire service . In this scenario , the District would
have to purchase a grass fire truck at a cost of $85 , 000. The annexation
area would provide no additional revenue to the District . Therefore , the
grass fire truck would hae to be funded from the District ' s existing Fire
Capital Improvement Fund . No additional fire personnel costs would be
incurred under this scenario .
FISCAL CONDITION OF DSRSD ASSUMING ANNEXATION WITH DEVELOPMENT
Under this scenario , the Fire Chief estimates that the Department would
have to acquire a site , build and operate a new fire station when new
development commences in the annexation area. If new development commences
in 1990-91 , the estimated cost of station acquisition and construction is
$750, 017. These expenses would initially be funded from the District ' s
existing Fire Capital Improvement Fund , and then repaid with capital
improvement fees from the new development in the annexation area. It is
estimated that the District would be repaid for the cost of the new fire
station by 1998-1999.
The cost of operating the fire station in 1990-1991 is estimated at
$833 , 200 per year.
Page 3
The only revenue available to the District from the annexation area is
property tax. In the year 1990-1991 , it is estimated that the District
will only receive $86 ,423 in additional property taxes from the annexation
area . Thus , a shortfall between revenue and expense exists and will
continue to exist until 2002-2003 , unless the construction of the station
is delayed or revenues are generated from outside the annexation area.
The impact on DSRSD represents the worst case scenario . If the station is
built later or if additional development to be served by DSRSD occurs east
of Tassajara Road , the cost impact on the District would be more favorable .
Since the new station would also service that portion of the City in the
vicinity of Dougherty Road , the operation of a new station could also be
funded from revenue sources within the existing District .
CONCLUSION
With respect to the City, both annexation scenarios would have a positive
fiscal impact on the City . During the 15 year study period, the annexation
with no development would have the most positive fiscal impact . However,
over a longer period of time , the annexation with development would have
the most positive fiscal impact . This trend is apparent in the last year
of the study (1999-2000) , with the net balance between revenues and
expenses totalling $5 , 980, 767 for the Annexation With Development Scenario
and $5 , 852 ,698 for the Annexation With No Development Scenario .
Based on this fiscal impact analysis , it is recommended that the Council
proceed with the processing of the annexation.
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION ON THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICE DISTRICT
A Report to the
City of Dublin
Prepared by
GRUEN GRUEN + ASSOCIATES
564 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105-3011
September 1985
C541
Gruen Gruen+Associates
564 Howard Street
San Francisco,Ca. 94105-3071
(415)433-7598
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of This Report 1
Background for Fiscal Impact Analysis 1
Scope of the Fiscal Impact Study 2
Impacts on the City of Dublin 2
Impacts on the Dublin San Ramon 3
Service District (DSRSD)
Organization of This Report 4
2 SUMMARY 5
Impacts on the City of Dublin 5
Fiscal Condition Assuming No 5
Annexation
Fiscal Condition Assuming Annexation 6
With No New Development in the
Annexation Area
Fiscal Condition Assuming Annexation 7
With 600 Acres of New Development in
the Annexation Area
Conclusions 8
Impacts on the DSRSD 8
Fiscal Impact of Annexation with No 10
New Development in the Annexation Area
Fiscal Impact of Annexation with 600 10
Acres of New Development in the
Annexation Area
3 THE FISCAL CONDITION OF DUBLIN WITH NO 12
ANNEXATION
Projected Development in the City of 12
Dublin
Gruen Gruen +Associates i
Table of Contents, continued
Chapter Page
Housing Units, Population and 12
Nonresidential Land Use
Streets, Lights and Trees 13
Parks 13
Projected Operating Costs 13
Projected Revenues 17
General Fund Revenues 19
Traffic Safety Fund Revenues 19
State Gas Tax Fund Revenues 23
Park Dedication Fund Revenues 23
Revenues in Other Funds 23
Revenues Considered for the First 27
Year Only
Total Revenues 27
The Appropriations Limit 27
Calculation of the Limit 27
Projected Revenues from Proceeds 29
of Taxes
Impact of the Appropriations Limit 29
Balance Before Capital Expenditures 33
Capital Expenditures and Reserves 33
Summary of Figures to be Used for 35
Comparison
4 THE FISCAL CONDITION OF DUBLIN WITH 37
ANNEXATION, ASSUMING NO DEVELOPMENT
IN THE ANNEXATION AREA
Gruen Gruen +Associates
ii
Table of Contents, continued
Chapter Page
Projected Development 38
Development in the Existing City 38
of Dublin
Characteristics of the Annexation Area 38
Projected Operating Costs 39
Projected Revenues 39
General Fund Revenues 39
Traffic Safety Fund Revenues 42
State Gas Tax Fund Revenues 42
Park Dedication Fund Revenues, 44
Other Fund Revenues and Revenues
Considered for the First Year
of the Study Only
Total Revenues 44
The Appropriations Limit 47
Calculation of the Limit 47
Projected Revenues from Proceeds 47
of Taxes
Impact of the Appropriations Limit 47
Balance Before Capital Expenditures 50
Capital Expenditures and Reserves 50
Summary Figures to be Used for Comparison 50
5 THE FISCAL CONDITION OF DUBLIN WITH 53
ANNEXATION, ASSUMING DEVELOPMENT IN
THE ANNEXATION AREA
Projected Development 53
Development in the Existing City of 53
Dublin
Gruen Gruen +Associates
iii
Table of Contents, continued
Chapter Page
Characteristics of the Annexation Area 54
Projected Operating Costs 56
Projected Revenues 59
General Fund Revenues 59
Traffic Safety Fund Revenues and 59
State Gas Tax Fund Revenues
Park Dedication Fund Revenues, Other 61
Fund Revenues and Revenues Considered
for the First Year of the Study Only
Total Revenues 61
The Appropriations Limit 63
Calculation of the Limit 63
Projected Revenues from Proceeds of 63
Taxes
Impact of the Appropriations Limit 63
Balance Before Capital Expenditures 63
Capital Expenditures and Reserves 65
Summary Figures to be Used for Comparison 65
6 ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACTS OF THE 68
PROPOSED ANNEXATION ON THE DUBLIN
SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
Change in Responsibility for Fire 68
Protection
Cost of Service 68
Annexation With No Development 69
Annexation With Development 69
Gruen Gruen +Associates
iv
Table of Contents, continued
Chapter Page
Revenue 70
Capital Improvement Fees 70
Property Tax Revenue 72
Balance Between Costs and Revenues 72
Capital Costs and Revenues 72
Operating Costs and Revenues 75
APPENDIX A NO ANNEXATION (Detailed Tables) A-1
APPENDIX B ANNEXATION WITH NO DEVELOPMENT IN B-1
THE ANNEXATION AREA (Detailed Tables)
APPENDIX C ANNEXATION WITH 600 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT C-1
OVER 20 YEARS IN THE ANNEXATION AREA
(Detailed Tables)
Gruen Gruen +Associates v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title Page
1 Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed Annexation 9
on the City of Dublin
NO ANNEXATION
2 Population and Development Assumptions: 14
Existing City
3 Public Works Characteristics: Existing 15
City
4 Summary of Net Operating Costs 16
5 Services Provided Under General 18
Categories of Costs in the City of
Dublin Operating Budget
6 Items Comprising General Categories 20
of Revenues in the City of Dublin
General Fund
7 Total General Fund Revenue 21
8 Projected Revenue From Vehicle Code 22
Fines
9 Total Gas Tax Fund Revenue 24
10 Projected Revenue From Park Dedication 25
Fees
11 Projected Revenue From Other Sources 26
12 Total Revenue in All Funds 28
13 Proposition 4 Limit on Appropriations 30
14 Proceeds of Taxes 31
Gruen Gruen +Associates vi
List of Tables, continued
Table
Number Title Page
15 Comparison of Appropriations Limit and 32
Tax Proceeds
16 Balance Between Operating Costs and 34
Revenues; Calculation of Potential
Capital Expenditures
17 Summary Figures for the No Annexation Case 36
ANNEXATION WITH NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE
ANNEXATION AREA
18 Summary of Net Operating Costs 40
19 Total General Fund Revenue 41
20 Projected Revenue From Vehicle Code Fines 43
21 Total Gas Tax Fund Revenue 45
22 Total Revenue in All Funds 46
23 Proposition 4 Limit on Appropriations 48
24 - Proceeds of Taxes 49
25 Balance Between Operating Costs and 51
Revenues; Calculation of Potential
Capital Expenditures
26 Summary Figures for the Annexation 52
With No Development Case
ANNEXATION WITH 600 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT
OVER 20 YEARS IN THE ANNEXATION AREA
27 Population and Development Assumptions: 55
Annexation Area
28 Public Works Characteristics: Annexation 57
Area
((:gj Gruen Gruen +Associates
vii
List of Tables, continued
Table
Number Title Page
29 Summary of Net Operating Costs 58
30 Total General Fund Revenue 60
31 Total Revenue in All Funds 62
32 Proceeds of Taxes 64
33 Balance Between Operating Costs and 66
Revenues; Calculation of Potential
Capital Expenditures
34 Summary Figures for the Annexation 67
With Development Case
35 Estimate of Capital Improvement Fees for 71
the Annexation Area
36 Property Tax Estimate for the Annexation 73
Area
37 Summary of Revenues and Costs 74
((:gj Gruen Gruen +Associates
viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report projects the fiscal impacts on the City of Dublin
and the Dublin San Ramon Service District (DSRSD) of a pro-
posed annexation to the City of Dublin . The area to be
annexed encompasses Camp Parks, which is owned by the United
States government , Tassajara Creek Regional Park , which is
owned by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) , and the
property owned by Alameda County on which Santa Rita Jail is
located . In all , the proposed annexation includes
approximately 2 ,700 acres of land .
BACKGROUND FOR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Fiscal impact analysis is the study of the effects of changes
in the status quo on the fiscal condition of a public agency.
The fiscal condition is described by the balance between the
cost of providing public services and the revenues collected
by the agency. The change in the status quo may be a change
in land use (e.g . , development) , public policy, the level of
service provided , a structural change in the cost of service
or a change in fee structures, tax levels or other revenue-
related regulations . In this case , the change is the
annexation of the land described above .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 1 -
To analyze the fiscal impacts of the annexation, the balance
between the city' s or the service district' s costs and reve-
nues with the annexation is compared to the balance between
costs and revenues without the annexation. If the balance is
more favorable with the annexation - that is, net revenue is
greater or net cost is smaller - then the action is projected
to have a positive impact . Conversely, if the balance is
less favorable with the annexation, the action is projected
to have an adverse impact.
SCOPE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT STUDY
Impacts on the City of Dublin
Comparison of Three Scenarios
To project the fiscal impacts of the proposed annexa-
tion, this study analyzes the fiscal condition of the City of
Dublin under three sets of conditions : ( 1 ) no annexation ,
(2) annexation with no urban development and . ( 3) annexation
and redesignation of approximately 600 acres of the County-
owned property to permit the development of business parks .
In the third case , it is assumed that development of the 600
acres will begin during the year 1990-1991 and be approxi-
mately one-half complete by the end of the study period
(1999-2000) . The fiscal condition of the city under each of
the alternative scenarios is then compared . The differences
in fiscal condition between the respective annexation cases
and the no annexation case indicate the impacts of the annex-
ation cases on the city.
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 2 -
Consideration of Costs and Revenues
The fiscal impact analysis considers all the cost and
revenue items included in the City of Dublin' s Preliminary
Budget and Financial Plan , Fiscal Year 1985-1986 and all cost
and revenue items in the city' s Five Year Capital Improvement
Program, 1983-88 , Proposed 1985-86 Update . In cases where
costs and revenues exactly offset each other , those costs and
revenues are removed from the analysis. All other costs and
revenues are considered and projected explicitly.
Consideration of the Appropriations Limit
The fiscal impact analysis considers explicitly the
limit on appropriations imposed by Article 13B of the
California Constitution. That limit , adopted by the state ' s
voters as an initiative measure (Proposition 4) in 1980 ,
constrains the expenditure of revenues defined as "proceeds
of taxes" to an amount based on the level of appropriations
using these funds during the fiscal year 1978-1979 . The
limit is adjusted each year to account for population growth
and inflation . For cities such as Dublin , which were
incorporated after Proposition 4 was passed , the initial
appropriations limit was adopted at the same time as the
incorporation was approved .
Impacts on the Dublin San
Ramon Service District (DSRSD)
Responses to a letter sent to the DSRSD by the City of Dublin
indicate that the only change in service requirements that
the district would expect to experience as a result of the
J
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 3 -
proposed annexation is related to fire protection . In the
annexation cases, the DSRSD would expand its boundaries for
fire protection, which already encompass the City of Dublin ,
to include the annexed area . This report , therefore , con-
siders the added costs that the district would incur and the
added revenues it would collect in the two annexation cases.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Chapter 2 of this report summarizes the findings of the
fiscal impact analysis for the City of Dublin and the DSRSD .
Chapters 3 , 4 and 5 present detailed examinations of the
development assumptions and fiscal results for the no annexa-
tion , annexation with no development and annexation with
development scenarios , respectively, for the City of Dublin .
Finally, Chapter 6 presents a more detailed description of
the fiscal analysis for the DSRSD.
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 4 -
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY
This report examines the fiscal impacts of a proposed annexa-
tion on the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) . This annexation would encompass 2 , 700
acres of land located to the east of the existing city , and
would include Camp Parks, Tassajara Creek Regional Park and
the County-owned land on which Santa Rita County Jail is
located .
IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF DUBLIN
To estimate the fiscal impacts of the annexation on the City
of Dublin, the fiscal condition of the city within its exist-
ing corporate limits was projected first . Then , the fiscal
condition of the city assuming that the annexation takes
place was projected . Two annexation scenarios were consi-
dered : one in which no new development occurs in the annexa-
tion area and a second in which 600 acres of land are redes-
ignated to permit the development of business park-type uses.
Fiscal Condition Assuming No Annexation
If no annexation takes place , the operating costs incurred by
the City of Dublin are projected to increase from $3 ,489 ,922
in 1985-1986 to $10 ,402 , 187 in 1999-2000 . These costs ex-
clude costs that are offset directly by identified revenues
but include all other costs specified in the city' s budget.
Gruen Gruen +Associates — 5 —
Revenues in the no annexation case are projected to increase
from $7 ,988 ,753 in 1985-1986 to $16 , 254 ,885 in 1999-2000 .
These figures include all revenues included in the city' s
budget except those that directly offset operating and capi-
tal costs.
The net balance between operating costs and revenues is
projected to be positive - that is , costs are projected to
exceed revenues - in every year during the study period . The
net revenues , along with interest on the reserve fund
balance , are assumed to be available for capital expenditures
beginning in 1988-1989 . (Capital expenditures before that
year are made according to the city' s adopted plan.) Expendi-
tures for capital improvements over the 15-year study period
would total $82 ,296 ,526 .
Fiscal Condition Assuming Annexation with
No New Development in the Annexation Area
If the. proposed annexation occurs and there is no new devel-
opment in the annexation area , then the city' s service costs
and revenues will increase slightly. Cost increases will be
attributable to the need for animal control , street mainte-
nance/sweeping and recreation . Revenue increases will be
attributable to the increase in population and the concomi-
tant increase in intergovernmental transfers from the state
government that are awarded , at least in part , on a per
capita basis.
In this scenario , operating costs (excluding those that are
directly offset by revenues) are projected to increase from
$3 ,489 ,922 in 1985-1986 to $10 , 472 ,918 in 1999-2000 . The
latter figure is approximately $70 ,731 greater than the
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 6 -
estimate for the no annexation case . Total city revenues
(excluding those that directly offset costs) are projected to
increase from $7 ,988 ,755 in 1985-1986 to $16 ,371 ,318 in 1999-
2000 . The figure for 1999-2000 is approximately $116 ,433
higher than the corresponding figure in the no annexation
scenario .
As in the no annexation case , revenues are projected to
exceed operating costs in every year during the study period .
The amount of funds available for capital expenditures
throughout the study period is $83 , 135 ,910 , approximately
$839 ,384 more than in the no annexation case .
Fiscal Condition Assuming Annexation With 600
Acres of New Development in the Annexation Area
If the proposed County-owned property is redesignated to
allow 600 acres of new business park development , both ser-
vice costs and revenues will increase by .greater amounts than
in the. annexation with no development case . In this sce-
nario , operating costs (excluding those directly offset by
revenues) are projected to increase from $3 ,489 ,922 in 1985-
1986 to $ 11 , 322 , 163 in 1999-2000 . Cost increases are
expected to occur in most non-general government service
categories. The projected operating costs in the final year
of the study are approximately $919 ,980 greater than for the
no annexation case and $849 ,250 greater than for the annexa-
tion with no development case.
Revenues in this scenario are projected to increase from
$7 ,988 ,755 in 1985-1986 to $17 , 302 ,930 in 1999-2000 ( these
figures exclude revenues that directly offset service costs) .
The 1999-2000 figure is approximately $1 ,048 ,045 higher than
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 7 -
the comparable figure for the no annexation scenario and
$913 ,612 higher than for the annexation with no development
scenario .
As in the other two cases, revenues are projected to exceed
operating costs in every year of the study period . Funds
available for capital expenditure total $82 , 505 , 262 for the
15-year study period . This amount is $208 ,736 greater than
total projected capital expenditures in the no annexation
case but $630 , 648 less than in the annexation with no
development case.
Conclusions
Table 1 summarizes the fiscal differences among the three
cases considered in this analysis by cost and revenue figures
for the three cases. The table suggests that , based on the
analysis described in this report , the proposed annexation
would have a positive fiscal impact on the City of Dublin .
Under either annexation case , there would be more revenue
available both for capital expenditures and for allocation to
the reserve fund than in the no annexation case . The table
indicates that the additional amount allocated to the reserve
fund would be the same in both annexation cases . Potential
additional capital expenditures during the study period would
be greater in the no development case . Because the net
balance between revenues and operating expenses in 1999-2000
is greater in the development scenario , however , it is possi-
ble that in the long run revenues available for capital
expenditures would be greater in that case .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 8 -
a
TABLE 1
Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed
Annexation on the City of Dublin
No Annexation With Annexation
Comparison for 15 Years Annexation No Development With Development
Total Operating Expenses,
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 $102,448,281 $103,130,792 $107,706,043
Total Capital Expenditures,
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 82,296,526 83,135,910 82,505,262
Total Revenues*,
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 186,693,023 188,268,515 192,213,118
Net Balance Between Revenues
and Total Expenditures
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 1 ,948,216 2,001,813 2,001 ,813
Difference from No Annexation Case
Additional Revenue Available
for Capital Expenditures 0 839,384 208,736
Additional Revenue Allocated
to Reserve Fund 0 53,597 53,597
Total Additional Revenue 0 892,981 262,333
Comparison for 1999-2000
Net Balance Between Revenues
and Operating Expenses 5,852,698 5,898,400 5,980,767
Reserve Fund Balance 11 ,366,930 11,420,527 11,420,527
Reserve Fund as a Percent of
Operating Expenses 109.3 109.0 93.5
*Includes interest on the reserve fund.
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Gruen Gruen + Associates - 9 -
IMPACTS ON THE DSRSD
If the proposed annexation is approved , then the DSRSD will
expand the area in which it has responsibility for fire
protection to include the annexed area . Thus , for compari-
son, the no annexation case has no cost or revenue implica-
tions for the district.
Fiscal Impact of Annexation with No
New Development in the Annexation Area
If the annexation is approved and there is no new development
in the annexation area , the DSRSD will need to acquire a
grass fire truck to respond to fires in the undeveloped
lands . The cost of such a truck is estimated to be $85 ,000
in 1985-1986 dollars . This cost would be covered by the
capital improvement fees levied by the district on new
development elsewhere in its jurisdiction.
In the. annexation with no development scenario , the DSRSD
would collect no new revenues.
Fiscal Impact of Annexation
With 600 Acres of New Development
in the Annexation Area
If the annexation is approved and business park development
is permitted in the annexation area, then the DSRSD will need
to acquire a grass truck and locate a new station to serve
the new development. The district estimates that the capital
cost of the site and station would be $550 ,000 in 1985-1986
dollars. The station would be built in 1990-1991 , at which
time inflation would have raised the cost to $750 ,017 . This
cost would be covered by capital improvement fees paid by
development in the annexation area , which are estimated to
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 10 -
total $984 ,021 by 1999-2000 (when one-half of the permitted
development is assumed to be completed) and $1 ,968 ,042 by the
full development year of 2009-2010 .
The annual cost of operating the new station , including
personnel salaries , is estimated by the district to be
$611 ,000 in 1985-1986 dollars. This cost will have increased
to $833 ,200 by 1990-1991 . The operating cost will be offset
by property tax revenues collected by the district . These
revenues are projected to increase from $86 ,423 in 1990-1991 ,
the first year of development in the annexation area , to
$1 ,258 ,217 in 1999-2000 and $3 ,873 ,523 in 2009-2010 , when
development is complete . The annual net balance between
revenues and costs is projected to turn positive in 2002-
2003 .
This analysis of the impact on DSRSD represents the worst
case scenario , because (1) the station is built at the earli-
est possible time , when revenues are lowest , and ( 2) only
revenues generated by development in the proposed annexation
area are assumed to offset station costs. If the station is
actually built later or if additional development to be
served by DSRSD occurs east of Tassajara Road , the cost-
revenue balance experienced by the district would be more
favorable . Financing for the operation of the station could
also be provided from revenue sources within the existing
district (city) , since the new station would also service
that portion of the district ( city) in the vicinity of
Dougherty Road .
Gruen Gruen +Associates
s
CHAPTER 3
THE FISCAL CONDITION OF DUBLIN
WITH NO ANNEXATION
This chapter presents the fiscal projection for the City of
Dublin assuming there is no annexation . It begins by re-
viewing the assumptions about development that guide the
fiscal analysis. It then describes the projected operating
costs. Next, it discusses projected revenues to all funds .
The impact of the appropriations limit on spendable revenues
is assessed . Finally , revenues are compared to operating
costs to yield an estimate of the amount of funds available
for capital expenditure in each year beyond the end of the
current Five Year Capital Improvement Program. The detailed
tables that provide the basis for information presented in
this chapter are collected in Appendix A.
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Housing Units, Population
and Nonresidential Land Use
If the city limits of Dublin remain as they are today, future
development and population growth would be limited to that
which could occur on available land within those limits . By
the time full development occurs, the number of housing units
in the city is expected to increase from 4 ,814 (as of January
1 , 1985) to 8 ,249 , and the population to increase from 15 ,608
to 22 ,691 . The amount of land devoted to office development
is expected to increase from 40 acres to 62 acres; the amount
of industrial development from 140 acres to 164 acres; . the
amount of retail use , excluding automobile dealerships , from
Gruen Gruen +Associates _ 12 _
226 acres to 273 acres; and the amount of land in automobile
dealerships from 24 acres to 28 acres . The amount of land
occupied by hotels - two acres - is expected to remain un-
changed . The anticipated changes in land use over the 15-
year study period are detailed in Table 2.
Streets, Lights and Trees
As future land use changes occur in the city , some new
streets will be added and related streetscape changes will
take place . As shown in Table 3 , the number of street miles
within the city is expected to increase from 50 in 1985-86 to
57 at full development . Concomitantly , the number of curb
miles is expected to increase from 138 to 157 and the mileage
of street medians , important for the estimation of street
landscape maintenance costs , from 10 to 12 . The expected
increases in the numbers of street lights , traffic signals
and street trees are also shown in Table 3 .
Parks
The City of Dublin plans to acquire 11 acres of "active" park
land and 90 acres of "passive" park land in 1985-1986 . In
addition, the city expects to acquire six acres of active
park land in 1986-1987 . No additional park land acquisitions
after 1986-87 are currently planned .
PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS
If the current city limits are maintained , the city' s operat-
ing costs will still increase in response to inflation ;
population growth and new development . Table 4 summarizes
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 13 -
Table 2
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS: EXISTING CITY
Housing Popu- Office Industrial Hotel Retail Auto Dlr.
Years Units lation Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage
------ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 5,663 17,377 40 140 2 226 24
1986 -1987 6,451 19,427 44 145 2 235 28
1987 -1988 6,861 20,263 49 150 2 245 28
1988 -1989 7,281 21,136 53 154 2 254 28
1989 -1990 7,571 21,740 58 159 2 264 28
1990 -1991 8,049 22,291 62 164 2 273 28
1991 -1992 8,089 22,371 62 164 2 273 28
1992 -1993 8,129 22,451 62 164 2 273 28
1993 -1994 8,169 22,531 62 164 2 273 28
1994 -1995 8,209 22,611 62 164 2 273 28
1995 -1996 8,249 22,691 62 164 2 273 28
1996 -1997 8,249 22,691 62 164 2 273 28
1997 -1998 8,249 22,691 62 164 2 273 28
1998 -1999 8,249 22,691 62 164 2 273 28
1999 -2000 8,249 22,691 62 164 2 273 28
The following amounts of development are projected to occur
within 5 years of the start of the study period:
l Residential: specified to a buildout total of 8,249 units
Office: 22 acres
Industrial: 24 acres
Retail: 47 acres
Auto Dlrs: 4 acres
Hotel: 0 acres
The population is projected to be 22,691 in 1990
The minimum population of the existing city for subventions is 18,900
through the year ending 1990
The population of the existing city in the first year of the study for
of the study for purposes of calculating the proposition 4 limit on
appropriations is 15,608
Gruen Gruen +Associates
M
Table 3
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PUBLIC WORKS CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING CITY
Street Curb Street Traffic Street Miles of
Years Miles Miles Lights Signals Trees Median
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ...... ------
1985 -1986 50 138 1,305 15 7,600 10
1986 -1987 51 142 1,377 17 7,773 10
1987 -1988 53 145 1,452 19 7,946 11
1988 -1989 54 149 1,490 21 8,118 11
1989 -1990 56 153 1,528 21 8,291 12
1990 -1991 57 157 1,566 22 8,464 12
1991 -1992 57 157 1,566 22 8,464 12
.1992 -1993 57 157 1,566 22 8,464 12
1993 -1994 57 157 1,566 22 8,464 12
1994 -1995 57 157 1,566 24 8,464 12
1995 -1996 57 157 1,566 24 8,464 12
1996 -1997 57 157 1,566 24 8,464 12
1997 -1998 57 157 1,566 24 8,464 12
1998 -1999 57 157 1,566 24 8,464 12
1999 -2000 57 157 1,566 24 8,464 12
Lnn The following amounts of development are projected to occur
within 5 years:
I Street miles:
Res.: 7.00
Nonres.: 0.25
Total: 7.25
Curb miles: 18.50
Median miles: 2.00
The following standards for development are assumed to apply:
Street lights: 26 per mile.
Street trees: 115 per mile on residential streets.
235 per mile on nonresidential streets.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 4
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
SUMMARY OF NET OPERATING COSTS*
Culture &
General Public Transpor- Health & Leisure Community Total
Years Gov't Safety tation Welfare Services Dev't Cost
------- ...... ...... ...... ------ ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 632,500 1,680,970 564,066 8,925 354,821 248,640 3,489,922
1986 -1987 763,017 1,977,087 630,398 9,496 534,285 264,553 4,178,836
1987 -1988 816,167 2,211,169 688,066 10,104 580,329 281,484 4,587,320
1988 -1989 868,096 2,451,992 750,585 10,751 630,637 299,499 5,011,561
1989 -1990 923,334 2,701,549 817,880 11,439 680,691 318,667 5,453,560
1990 -1991 982,090 2,933,902 890,630 12,171 733,663 339,062 5,891,518
1991 -1992 1,044,590 3,129,339 947,767 12,950 782,071 360,762 6,277,480
1992 -1993 1,111,072 3,337,775 1,008,571 13,778 833,670 383,851 6,688,718
1993 -1994 1,181,791 3,560,074 1,073,275 14,660 888,670 408,417 7,126,887
1994 -1995 1,257,016 3,822,322 1,142,130 15,599 947,296 434,556 7,618,918
1995 -1996 1,337,035 4,076,778 1,215,403 16,597 1,009,786 462,367 8,117,965
1996 -1997 1,422,154 4,337,691 1,293,188 17,659 1,074,412 491,959 8,637,064
1997 -1998 1,512,698 4,615,304 1,375,953 18,789 1,143,174 523,444 9,189,362
1998 -1999 1,609,012 4,910,683 1,464,013 19,992 1,216,337 556,945 9,776,983
1999 -2000 1,711,467 5,224,967 1,557,710 21,271 1,294,183 592,589 10,402,187
rn
* Excludes costs that are offset by fees for special police services,
recreation, zoning and subdivision processing, plan check and
inspection, building permits, Zone 7 collections and special
assessment district revenues.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
the projections of operating costs for the 15-year study
period , by general budget category. As indicated in the
table , the general categories of service for which operating
costs are incurred are general government , public safety,
transportation, health and welfare , culture and leisure ser-
vices , and community development . The specific services
provided under each of these general categories are detailed
in Table 5 .
As shown in Table 4 , total net operating costs are projected
to increase from their budgeted level of $3 ,489 ,922 in 1985-
-1986 to $10 ,402 ,187 in 1999-2000 . The costs summarized in
Table 4 include all city operating costs that are not di-
rectly offset by revenues . Specifically, costs covered by
fees for special police services , recreation , zoning and
subdivision processing , plan check and inspection , building
permits , zone 7 fee collection and special assessment dis-
trict revenues are excluded from the calculation of net
operating costs. These offset costs total $696 ,500 in the
1985-1986 budget.
PROJECTED REVENUES
Revenues collected by the City of Dublin are grouped into a
series of discrete funds . This study projects the revenues ,
excluding interest , separately for each of these funds .
Interest revenues are estimated after all other revenues have
been projected .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 17 -
TABLE 5
Services Provided Under General
Categories of Costs in the
City of Dublin Operating Budget
Category Item
GENERAL GOVERNMENT City Council
City Manager/Clerk
Legal Services
Finance
Building Mangement
Insurance
Non-departmental
PUBLIC SAFETY Police Services
Crossing Guards
Animal Control
Traffic Signals &
Street Lighting
Disaster Preparedness
TRANSPORTATION Street Maintenance
Street Sweeping
Public Works Admin.
Street Tree Maint.
Street Landscaping Maint.
Paratransit Service
HEALTH & WELFARE Vector Control
CULTURE & LEISURE SERVICES Library Service
Recreation
Park Maintenance
Senior Citizens' Program
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning
Building & Safety
Engineering
Source; City of Dublin Budget, 1985-86.
f..
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 18 -
General Fund Revenues
The broad categories of revenues that accrue to the general
fund are taxes, license and permit fees , fines and forfei-
tures, revenue from the use of money and property, inter-
governmental transfers from the State of California , charges
for services and miscellaneous revenues. The specific items
that comprise each of these categories are detailed in Table
6 .
Table 7 presents the projected total revenues expected to be
collected in the general fund in each year during the study
period . This total is projected to increase from $5 ,752 , 379
in 1985-1986 to $15 ,227 ,630 in 1999-2000 . The general fund
revenues projected in Table 7 exclude some revenues that
directly offset costs of providing services : fees for spe-
cial police services, building permits and zoning and sub-
division processing; plan check and inspection fees; park and
recreation fees; Zone 7 fees and special assessment district
revenues. In addition, they exclude revenues. from bus bench
ad permits and the state subvention for homeowners ' property
tax relief , which are considered later in the study. Final-
ly, they exclude interest earned on the fund balance , which
is also considered later in the study.
Traffic Safety Fund Revenues
Revenues collected from vehicle code fines are placed in the
traffic safety fund . As shown in Table 8 , these funds are
projected to increase from their 1985-1986 level of $55 ,000
to $71 ,819 in 1999-2000 . This projection assumes no increase
for inflation.
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 19 -
TABLE 6
Items Comprising General
Categories of Revenues in the
City of Dublin General Fund
Category Service
TARES Property Tax - Current Year
Property Tax - Prior Year
Sales and Use
Real Property Transfer
Hotel Transient Occupancy
Electric Franchise
Gas Franchise
CATV Franchise
LICENSES & PERMITS Building Permits
Animal Licenses
Bus Bench Ad Permits
Encroachment Permits
Other Permits
FINES & FORFEITURES Other Court Fines
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY Interest
Rents & Concessions
INTERGOV. REV. - STATE Motor Vehicle. In Lieu
Trailer Coach In Lieu
Cigarette Tax
Off Hwy. Veh. In Lieu
Homeowner's Prop. Tax Reimb.
CHARGES FOR SERVICE Zoning & Subdiv. Fees
Plan Check & Insp.
Map & Document Sales
Spec. Police Dept. Services
Park & Recreation Fees
Other Charges
Building Use Insurance
Zone 7 Drainage Fees
OTHER REVENUES Sale of Property
Contrib. & Reimb.
Miscellaneous
Shannon Ctr. Lease Subsidy
Reimb. for Pub. Damage
Source: City of Dublin Budget, 1985-86.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
- 20 -
Table 7
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE*
Licenses Fines and Intergov. Charges
and Forfei- Use of Revenue- for Misc. Total
Years Taxes Permits Lures Property State Services Revenues Revenue
------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ...... ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 5,070,000 12,000 8,500 58,400 565,880 8,400 29,199 5,752,379
1986 -1987 5,796,710 13,772 9,503 65,290 581,659 9,628 29,532 6,506,093
1987 -1988 6,392,771 15,089 9,912 68,099 606,689 10,544 29,886 7,132,990
1988 -1989 7,015,869 16,539 10,339 71,033 632,827 11,551 30,263 7,788,421
1989 -1990 7,710,717 17,954 10,634 73,063 650,912 12,536 30,664 8,506,479
1990 -1991 8,400,929 19,449 10,904 74,915 667,409 13,576 31,090 9,218,272
1991 -1992 8,912,022 20,747 10,943 75,184 669,804 14,481 31,544 9,734,725
1992 -1993 9,456,665 22,132 10,982 75,453 672,200 15,447 32,027 10,284,905
1993 -1994 10,037,550 23,609 11,021 75,721 674,595 16,477 32,541 10,871,515
1994 -1995 10,656,937 25,184 11,060 75,990 676,990 17,576 33,087 11,496,826
1995 -1996 11,308,927 26,864 11,099 76,259 679,385 18,748 33,669 12,154,952
1996 -1997 12,001,777 28,584 11,099 76,259 679,385 19,948 34,288 12,851,340
1997 -1998 12,740,330 30,413 11,099 76,259 679,385 21,225 34,946 13,593,658
1998 -1999 13,527,413 32,360 11,099 76,259 679,385 22,583 35,647 14,384,746
N 1999 -2000 14,366,035 34,431 11,099 76,259 679,385 24,029 36,392 15,227,630
I * Excludes revenues from building permits, bus bench ad permits,
other permits, homeowners property tax relief subvention, zoning
and subdivision fees, plan check and inspection fees, park and
recreation fees, special police department service fees
Zone 7 drainage fees, special assessment districts and interest.
Gruen Gruen + Associates
1
Table 8
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM VEHICLE CODE FINES
Existing City Annexation Area Total
Revenue from
Popu- Revenue Total Popu- Revenue Total Combined
Years lation per Capita Revenue lation 'per Capita Revenue Area
...... ...... ------ ...... ...... ...... ------
1985 -1986 17,377 3.17 55,000 0 3.17 0 55,000
1986 -1987 19,427 3.17 61,488 0 3.17 0 61,488
1987 -1988 20,263 3.17 64,134 0 3.17 0 64,134
1988 -1989 21,136 3.17 66,898 0 3.17 0 66,898
1989 -1990 21,740 3.17 68,809 0 3.17 0 68,809
1990 -1991 22,291 3.17 70,553 0 3.17 0 70,553
1991 -1992 22,371 3.17 70,807 0 3.17 0 70,807
1992 -1993 22,451 3.17 71,060 0 3.17 0 71,060
1993 -1994 22,531 3.17 71,313 0 3.17 0 71,313
1994 -1995 22,611 3.17 71,566 0 3.17 0 71,566
1995 -1996 22,691 3.17 71,819 0 3.17 0 71,819
1996 -1997 22,691 3.17 71,819 0 3.17 0 71,819
1997 -1998 22,691 3.17 71,819 0 3.17 0 71,819
1998 -1999 22,691 3.17 71,819 0 3.17 0 71,819
N 1999 -2000 22,691 3.17 71,819 0 3.17 0 71,819
N
Revenue from vehicle code fines in the first year of the study is
55,000 Given a population of 17,377 this amount
equals an average of 3.17 per capita. The amount is not
projected to increase with inflation.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
State Gas Tax Fund Revenues
The City of Dublin receives revenues from the state gas tax
via three programs . These revenues are projected to increase
from $253 ,000 in 1985-1986 to $302 ,982 in 1999-2000 . This
projection, which relies on a simplification of the actual
basis on which these funds are allocated to local govern-
ments , also assumes that inflation has no impact on the
amount of revenue per capita . These revenues are summarized
in Table 9 .
Park Dedication Fund Revenues
Park dedication fees are paid when final maps for new subdi-
visions are approved . These fees are based partly on whether
the housing units are single family or multiple family dwell-
ings and partly on the market value of the land on which the
units are located . The revenue expected from these fees will
therefore vary with the amount of construction . Estimated
revenue from park dedication fees is shown in Table 10 .
Revenues in Other Funds
Table 11 summarizes the revenues projected to accrue to the
Transportation Development Act (TDA) fund , the Office of
Transportation Safety (OTS) Grant fund , the 1984 State - Park
Bond Act fund , the general revenue sharing fund , the Commu-
nity Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund and the Federal Aid
Urban (FAU) fund . Many of these revenues are expected to be
discontinued after the current budget year . As a result, the
projected revenue for 1999-2000 is $27 , 265 , significantly
lower than the total of $841 ,974 budgeted in 1985-86 .
Gruen Gruen + Associates - 23 -
Table 9
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL GAS TAX FUND REVENUE
Gas Tax Gas Tax Gas Tax Total
Years Sec. 2106 Sec. 2107 Sec.2107.5 Revenue
------- ------ ...... ...... ------
1985 -1986 85,500 163,500 4,000 253,000
1986 -1987 87,750 168,059 4,000 259,809
1987 -1988 91,320 175,291 5,000 271,611
1988 -1989 95,047 182,843 5,000 282,891
1989 -1990 97,626 188,068 5,000 290,695
1990 -1991 99,979 192,835 5,000 297,814
1991 -1992 100,321 193,527 5,000 298,848
1992 -1993 100,662 194,219 5,000 299,881
1993 -1994 101,004 194,911 5,000 300,915
1994 -1995 101,345 195,603 5,000 301,948
1995 -1996 101,687 196,295 5,000 302,982
1996 -1997 101,687 196,295 5,000 302,982
1997 -1998 101,687 196,295 5,000 302,982
1998 -1999 101,687 196,295 5,000 302,982
N 1999 -2000 101,687 196,295 5,000 302,982
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 10
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM PARK DEDICATION FEES
Total
Rev. from Rev. from Revenue from
Existing Annex. Combined
Years City Area Area
------- ...... ------ ......
1985 -1986 67,300 0 67,300
1986 -1987 935,163 0 935,163
1987 -1988 840,759 0 840,759
1988 -1989 0 0 0
1989 -1990 0 0 0
1990 -1991 0 0 0
1991 -1992 0 0 0
1992 -1993 0 0 0
1993 -1994 0 0 0
1994 -1995 0 0 0
1995 -1996 0 0 0
1996 -1997 0 0 0
1 1997 -1998 0 0 0
N 1998 -1999 0 0 0
Ln 1999 -2000 0 0 0
I
Revenue from park dedication fees in the first year of the study is
67,300 Revenue in future years is projected to total
935,163 in the year ending in 1987
840,759 in the year ending in 1988 and
0 after the year ending in 1988
Revenues shown are exclusive of land donated in lieu of fees.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 11
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM OTHER SOURCES
Transpor- Office of General Community
tation Traffic 1984 State Revenue Development Federal
Development Safety Park Bond Sharing Block Aid Urban Total
Years Act Fund Grant Fund Act Fund Fund Grant Fund Fund Revenue
---...- -----. ...... ------ ...... ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 11,440 6,000 7,653 222,581 39,300 555,000 841,974
1986 -1987 12,172 0 0 0 59,660 0 71,832
1987 -1988 12,951 0 0 0 59,860 0 72,811
1988 -1989 13,780 0 0 0 0 0 13,780
1989 -1990 14,662 0 0 0 0 0 14,662
1990 -1991 15,600 0 0 0 0 0 15,600
1991 -1992 16,599 0 0 0 0 0 16,599
1992 -1993 17,661 0 0 0 0 0 17,661
1993 -1994 18,791 0 0 0 0 0 18,791
1994 -1995 19,994 0 0 0 0 0 19,994
1995 -1996 21,274 0 0 0 0 0 21,274
1996 -1997 22,635 0 0 0 0 0 22,635
1997 -1998 24,084 0 0 0 0 0 24,084
1998 -1999 25,625 0 0 0 0 0 25,625
N 1999 -2000 27,265 0 0 0 0 0 27,265
rn
I Article 4.5 funds, which total 11,440 in the first
year of the study, are projected to increase with inflation.
Revenue available from the Office of Traffic Safety Grant Fund total
6,000 in the first year of the study. This revenue is projected
to be 0 thereafter.
Revenue available from the 1984 State Park Bond Act in the first year of
the study 7,653 This revenue is projected to be 0
in subsequent years.
General revenue sharing funds in the first year of the study are
222,581 This revenue is expected to go to 0
in the year ending in 1987
Revenue from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the first
year total 39,300 These revenues are projected to be
59,660 in the year 1987 and 59,860
in the year ending in 1988
Federal Aid Urban fund revenues in the first year of the study equal
555,000 These funds are projected to equal 0 thereafter.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Revenues Considered for the First Year Only
Some revenues included in the 1985-1986 budget have been
excluded from the appropriate fund calculations in this study
because they are expected to be discontinued after the cur-
rent year , they are zero in the current year or they offset
costs that are also excluded from the study . The revenues
that directly offset costs are identified above , in the
discussion of the general fund . Revenues that are zero in
the current year or are expected to be zero in future years
are bus bench ad permit fees, other permit fees , subventions
for homeowners ' property tax exemptions , other service
charges and revenue from sales of property. The total reve-
nue from all of these sources is $19 ,100 in 1985-1986 .
Total Revenues
The total revenue projected to accrue to all city funds
during the 15-year study period is summarized , by fund or
fund group, in Table 12 . This table also calculates pro-
jected interest revenue for all funds , based on an interest
rate of 10 percent ( in an environment of 6 .4 percent infla-
tion) . The table shows that total revenue , with adjustments
as noted earlier in this report and in the footnotes to the
table , would increase from $7 , 988 , 753 in 1985-1986 to
$16 ,254 ,885 in 1999-2000 .
THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
Calculation of the Limit
The appropriations limit for the City of Dublin for the 1985-
1986 budget year is $6 ,490 ,776 . As indicated in Chapter 1 of
Gruen Gruen +Associates
27 -
Table 12
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL REVENUE IN ALL FUNDS*
Traffic State Park Revenues
General Safety Gas Tax Dedication Other Not Interest on Total
Years Fund Fund Fund Fund ' Funds** Projected*** Revenues Revenue**
------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ...... ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 5,752,379 55,000 253,000 67,300 841,974 19,100 1,000,000 7,988,753
1986 -1987 6,506,093 61,488 259,809 935,163 71,832 0 313,375 8,147,761
1987 -1988 7,132,990 64,134 271,611 840,759 72,811 0 335,292 8,717,598
1988 -1989 7,788,421 66,898 282,891 0 13,780 0 326,080 8,478,069
1989 -1990 8,506,479 68,809 290,695 0 14,662 0 355,226 9,235,870
1990 -1991 9,218,272 70,553 297,814 0 15,600 0 384,090 9,986,329
1991 -1992 9,734,725 70,807 298,848 0 16,599 0 404,839 10,525,817
1992 -1993 10,284,905 71,060 299,881 0 17,661 0 426,940 11,100,447
1993 -1994 10,871,515 71,313 300,915 0 18,791 0 450,501 11,713,035
1994 -1995 11,496,826 71,566 301,948 0 19,994 0 475,613 12,365,948
1995 -1996 12,154,952 71,819 302,982 0 21,274 0 502,041 13,053,069
1996 -1997 12,851,340 71,819 302,982 0 22,635 0 529,951 13,778,728
1997 -1998 13,593,658 71,819 302,982 0 24,084 0 559,702 14,552,245
1998 -1999 14,384,746 71,819 302,982 0 25,625 0 591,407 15,376,579
N 1999 -2000 15,227,630 71,819 302,982 0 27,265 0 625,188 16,254,885
00
I Interest on revenues and the reserve fund in the first year of the study is
1,000,000 In future years, interest of 10% per year
on 40% of revenues is assumed. Interest on the reserve
is calculated separately.
* Excludes all revenues assumed to offset costs directly
(see notes in previous tables).
** Transportation Development Act Fund, Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Fund, 1984 State Park Bond Act Fund, General Revenue Sharing Fund,
Community Development Block Grant Fund, Federal Aid Urban Fund.
*** Bus bench ad permits, other permits, other service charges,
reimbursement for homeowners' property tax exemption, property sales.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
this report, this limit is adjusted annually to account for
population growth and inflation . In effect , these ad-
justments maintain the total appropriations limit at a con-
stant amount per capita in constant dollars ( that is , a
constant level of purchasing power) . The appropriations
limit applies only to revenues defined as " proceeds of
taxes" ; all other revenues may be spent without restriction.
Table 13 projects the city' s appropriations limit through the
end of the study period given the assumptions about popula-
tion growth and inflation used in this analysis . According
to the table, the limit would increase from its current level
to $22 ,489 ,810 by the year 1999-2000 .
Projected Revenues from Proceeds of Taxes
The projected city revenues from the proceeds of taxes are
calculated in Table 14 . These revenues include taxes, inter-
governmental transfers from the State of California , gas tax
revenues , TDA funds, OTS Grant funds and the portion of all
interest attributable to the direct tax proceeds . The table
shows that these revenues are estimated to total $6 , 249 ,620
in 1985-1986 . By 1999-2000 , they are projected to amount to
$15 ,990 ,695 .
Impact of the Appropriations Limit
In any year that the revenues from proceeds of taxes exceed
the appropriations limit, the city' s net spendable revenue is
reduced by the amount of the excess. Table 15 indicates that
this situation would not occur during the study period .
Gruen Gruen +Associates _ 29 _
1
Table 13
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROPOSITION 4 LIMIT ON APPROPRIATIONS
Population Change
Existing Annex. in Popu- Infla-
Years City Area Total lation* Lion Limit
------- ...... ------ ------ ------ ...... ------
1985 -1986 15,608 0 15,608 6.4% 6,490,776
1986 -1987 17,377 0 17,377 11.3% 6.4% 7,688,928
1987 -1988 19,427 0 19,427 11.8% 6.4% 9,146,151
1988 -1989 20,263 0 20,263 4.3% 6.4% 10,150,279
1989 -1990 21,136 0 21,136 4.3% 6.4% 11,265,194
1990 -1991 21,740 0 21,740 2.9% 6.4% 12,328,693
1991 -1992 22,291 0 22,291 2.5% 6.4% 13,450,198
1992 -1993 22,371 0 22,371 0.4% 6.4% 14,362,372
1993 -1994 22,451 0 22,451 0.4% 6.4% 15,336,211
1994 -1995 22,531 0 22,531 0.4% 6.4% 16,375,874
1995 -1996 22,611 0 22,611 0.4% 6.4% 17,485,796
1996 -1997 22,691 0 22,691 0.4% 6.4% 18,670,713
1997 -1998 22,691 0 22,691 0.0% 6.4% 19,865,639
1 1998 -1999 22,691 0 22,691 0.0% 6.4% 21,137,040
w 1999 -2000 22,691 0 22,691 0.0% 6.4% 22,489,810
0
I The appropriations limit in the first year of the study is
6,490,776
The population of the existing city in the first year of the study for
of the study for purposes of calculating the proposition 4 limit on
appropriations is 15,608
The population for purposes of calculating the proposition 4
appropriations limit in a given year is equal to the population
in the previous year.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 14
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROCEEDS OF TAXES
Interest
Homeowners' Attributable
Intergov't Gas TDA OTS Prop. Tax to Tax
Years Taxes Rev.-State Tax Funds Grant Exemption Subtotal Proceeds Total
------ ...... ------ ...... ...... ------ ------ ...... ......
1985 -1986 5,070,000 565,880 253,000 11,440 6,000 18,300 5,924,620 325,000 6,249,620
1986 -1987 5,796,710 581,659 259,809 12,172 0 0 6,650,350 266,014 6,916,364
1987 -1988 6,392,771 606,689 271,611 12,951 0 0 7,284,023 291,361 7,575,384
1988 -1989 7,015,869 632,827 282,891 13,780 0 0 7,945,367 317,815 8,263,181
1989 -1990 7,710,717 650,912 290,695 14,662 0 0 8,666,985 346,679 9,013,664
1990 -1991 8,400,929 667,409 297,814 15,600 0 0 9,381,753 375,270 9,757,023
1991 -1992 8,912,022 669,804 298,848 16,599 0 0 9,897,272 395,891 10,293,163
1992 -1993 9,456,665 672,200 299,881 17,661 0 0 10,446,406 417,856 10,864,263
1993 -1994 10,037,550 674,595 300,915 18,791 0 0 11,031,851 441,274 11,473,126
1994 -1995 10,656,937 676,990 301,948 19,994 0 0 11,655,870 466,235 12,122,105
1995 -1996 11,308,927 679,385 302,982 21,274 0 0 12,312,568 492,503 12,805,071
1996 -1997 12,001,777 679,385 302,982 22,635 0 0 13,006,779 520,271 13,527,051
1997 -1998 12,740,330 679,385 302,982 24,084 0 0 13,746,782 549,871 14,296,653
I 1998 -1999 13,527,413 679,385 302,982 25,625 0 0 14,535,405 581,416 15,116,821
w 1999 -2000 14,366,035 679,385 302,982 27,265 0 0 15,375,668 615,027 15,990,695
N
Gruen Gruen +Associates
N
Table 15
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
COMPARISON OF APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT AND TAX PROCEEDS
Revenue
Appropriations Proceeds Not Spendable
Years Limit of Taxes Spendable Revenue
------- ------ ------ ------ ------
1985 -1986 6,490,776 6,249,620 0 6,249,620
1986 -1987 7,688,928 6,916,364 0 6,916,364
1987 -1988 9,146,151 7,575,384 0 7,575,384
1988 -1989 10,150,279 8,263,181 0 8,263,181
1989 -1990 11,265,194 9,013,664 0 9,013,664
1990 -1991 12,328,693 9,757,023 0 9,757,023
1991 -1992 13,450,198 10,293,163 0 10,293,163
1992 -1993 14,362,372 10,864,263 0 10,864,263
1993 -1994 15,336,211 11,473,126 0 11,473,126
1994 -1995 16,375,874 12,122,105 0 12,122,105
1995 -1996 17,485,796 12,805,071 0 12,805,071
1996 -1997 18,670,713 13,527,051 0 13,527,051
1997 -1998 19,865,639 14,296,653 0 14,296,653
I 1998 -1999 21,137,040 15,116,821 0 15,116,821
w
N
Gruen Gruen +Associates
BALANCE BEFORE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
The balance between projected spendable revenues and pro-
jected operating costs in the no annexation case is shown in
the column of Table 16 headed "Net" . This column indicates
that the balance would increase from $4 ,498 ,831 in 1985-1986
to $5 ,852 ,698 in 1999-2000 .
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES
Capital expenditures excluding additional police cars are
budgeted through .1987-1988 in the city' s Five Year Capital
Improvement Program , 1983-88 , Proposed 1985-86 Update . In
the column of Table 16 , headed " Budgeted or Available from
Interest and Surplus" , the budgeted amounts for those years
are inflated at the standard 6 .4 percent rate used throughout
this analysis . Anticipated expenditures for police cars ,
also inflated as appropriate , are detailed in the next column
of the table , and total capital expenditures are shown in the
final column.
-After 1987-1988 , when the current capital budget expires , it
is assumed that capital expenditures will be made at a level
that permits the city to hold its reserve fund constant at
its amount at the end of 1987-1988 (shown in Table 15 as the
beginning of 1988-1989) . In other words , total funds avail-
able for capital expenditures will be the sum of any net
revenue after operating expenses ( the column headed "Net" )
plus the interest on the reserve fund ( " Interest on
Reserve") . The only deviation from this assumption is an
additional expenditure for police cars in 1989-1990 .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 33 -
Table 16
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
BALANCE BETWEEN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES; Capital Expenditures
CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Budgeted or
Revenues Total Reserve a Interest Available
Total Not Spendable Operating Beginning on from Interest Police
Years Revenues* Spendable Revenues* Costs Net of Year Reserve and Surplus Cars Total
------- ...... ...... ...... ----. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 7,988,753 0 7,988,753 3,489,922 4,498,831 9,418,714 5,666,556 0 5,666,556
1986 -1987 8,147,761 0 8,147,761 4,178,836 3,968,925 8,250,989 825,099 3,543,865 27,664 3,571,529
1987 -1988 8,717,598 0 8,717,598 4,587,320 4,130,278 9,473,484 947,348 3,143,831 14,717 3,158,548
1988 -1989 8,478,069 0 8,478,069 5,011,561 3,466,508 11,392,563 1,139,256 4,605,764 0 4,605,764
1989 -1990 9,235,870 0 9,235,870 5,453,560 3,782,310 11,392,563 1,139,256 4,921,566 25,633 4,947,199
1990 -1991 9,986,329 0 9,986,329 5,891,518 4,094,811 11,366,930 1,136,693 5,231,504 0 5,231,504
1991 -1992 10,525,817 0 10,525,817 6,277,480 4,248,337 11,366,930 1,136,693 5,385,030 0 5,385,030
1992 -1993 11,100,447 0 11,100,447 6,688,718 4,411,729 11,366,930 1,136,693 5,548,422 0 5,548,422
1993 -1994 11,713,035 0 11,713,035 7,126,887 4,586,148 11,366,930 1,136,693 5,722,841 0 5,722,841
1994 -1995 12,365,948 0 12,365,948 7,618,918 4,747,029 11,366,930 1,136,693 5,883,722 0 5,883,722
1995 -1996 13,053,069 0 13,053,069 8,117,965 4,935,103 11,366,930 1,136,693 6,071,796 0 6,071,796
1996 -1997 13,778,728 0 13,778,728 8,637,064 5,141,664 11,366,930 1,136,693 6,278,357 0 6,278,357
1997 -1998 14,552,245 0 14,552,245 9,189,362 5,362,884 11,366,930 1,136,693 6,499,577 0 6,499,577
1998 -1999 15,376,579 0 15,376,579 9,776,983 5,599,596 11,366,930 1,136,693 6,736,289 0 6,736,289
1999 -2000 16,254,885 0 16,254,885 10,402,187 5,852,698 11,366,930 1,136,693 6,989,391 0 6,989,391
I
Wp * Excludes interest on reserve fund.
I The reserve at the beginning of the first year in the study is
9,418,714
The interest rate earned on reserves is assumed to be 10% per year.
Expenditures for capital improvements in the first year of the study are
6,718,776 of which 1,052,220 are offset by contributions
and reimbursements. These contributions leave 5,666,556 to be
funded by other sources in the first year. Expenditures are projected
to total 3,330,700 in the year ending in 1987
and 2,777,000 in the year ending in 1988
with no offsetting contributions. Thereafter, expenditures for '.
capital improvements will be made as permitted by the balance
between other costs and revenues.
The police department will add vehicles according to this schedule:
Year End Number Capital Cost Annual Cost
-------- ------ ------------ ......-----
1987 2 13,000 15,000
1988 1 13,000 15,000
1990 1 13,000 15,000
1990 1 7,000 7,000
The capital costs for vehicles are added to the capital budget.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Under these assumptions, the reserve fund would remain steady
at $11 ,366 ,930 from 1990-1991 through 1999-2000 . Capital
expenditures would increase from $4 ,605 ,764 in 1988-1989 to
$6 ,989 ,391 in 1999-2000 .
SUMMARY FIGURES TO BE USED FOR COMPARISON
Table 17 presents a series of summary cost and revenue fig-
ures for the no annexation case which may be used for com-
parison with the other two cases considered in this analy-
sis . The figures included in the table are ( 1 ) total
operating expenses over the 15-year study period , ( 2) total
capital expenditures over the study period , (3) total revenue
over the study period , ( 4) the net balance between total
revenues and total expenditures over the study period , ( 5)
the net balance between revenues and operating costs in 1999-
2000 , (6) the amount of the reserve fund in 1999-2000 , and
(7) the reserve as a percent of total operating expenses in
1999-2000 .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 35 -
TABLE 17
Summary Figures for
the No Annexation Case
Comparison for 15 Years No Annexation
Total Operating Expenses
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 $102,448,281
Total Capital Expenditures
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 82,296,526
Total Revenue*
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 186,693,023
Net Balance Between Revenues
and Total Expenditures,
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 1 ,948,216
Comparison for 1999-2000
Net Balance Between Revenues and
Operating Expenses 5,852,698
Reserve Fund Balance 11 ,366,930
Reserve Fund as a Percent of
Operating Expenses 109.3
*Includes interest on reserve fund.
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 36 -
s
CHAPTER 4
THE FISCAL CONDITION OF DUBLIN WITH ANNEXATION,
ASSUMING NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANNEXATION AREA
If the proposed annexation of Camp Parks , Tassajara Creek
Regional Park and the County-owned property to the City of
Dublin is approved , the city will assume responsibility for
provision of several services in the annexed area . In addi-
tion, the city will receive some additional revenues . If no
new development occurs in the annexation area , these addi-
tional revenues will be primarily those intergovernmental
transfers awarded by the state based wholly or partly on
population.
This chapter presents the fiscal projection for the City of
Dublin assuming that the annexation is approved but no new
development takes place in the annexation area . Like Chapter
3 , it begins by reviewing the assumptions about development
that ,guide the fiscal analysis. It then describes the pro-
jected operating costs that the city would incur in serving
both the existing city and the annexation area and the reve-
nues that the city would collect from the combined area .
Next , it compares the projected revenues to projected operat-
ing costs and discusses the impacts of the appropriations
limit on spendable revenues. Finally, it projects the bal-
ance between spendable revenues and operating costs , the
level of the reserve fund and the amount of funds available
for capital expenditures. The detailed tables that provide
the basis for information presented in this chapter are
collected in Appendix B.
Gruen Gruen + Associates _ 37
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
Development in the Existing City of Dublin
If the proposed annexation is approved , future development is
expected to occur within the current city limits just as in
the no annexation case . As indicated in Table 2 ( page 14) ,
at full development the city would have 8 , 249 housing units
and 22 ,691 residents . Office development would occupy 62
acres , industrial development 164 acres , hotels 2 acres ,
retail use (excluding automobile dealerships) 273 acres and
automobile dealerships 28 acres . The projected miles of
streets , curbs and medians , the numbers of street lights ,
traffic signals and street trees, and the amount of park land
would be the same as in the no annexation case , shown in
Tables 3 (page 15) and 4 (page 16) .
Characteristics of the Annexation Area
Although there would be no new development in the annexation
area , the existing population and some existing development
have implications for the city' s expected service costs and
revenues. The current population of the area is estimated to
be 2 ,568 , including 100 military personnel and family mem-
bers, 568 inmates at the federal prison located on the Camp
Parks property and 1 ,900 inmates at Santa Rita County Jail .
There are four miles of existing roads (Tassajara Road and
the frontage road) , with no curbs , medians , street lights ,
traffic signals or street trees . There is no park land in
the annexation area for which the city would assume
responsibility.
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 38 -
For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the initial
cost and revenue changes that result from the annexation will
occur in the fiscal year 1986-1987 . In other words , 1986-
1987 is the first year in which the city will incur costs of
service provision - e.g . , street maintenance - and the first
year in which it will receive revenues from the annexed area .
PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS
If the annexation is approved , the city' s projected operating
costs will increase from their 1985-1986 level of $3 ,489 ,922
to a 1999-2000 level of $10 ,472 ,918 . This total cost for the
final year of the study period is approximately $ 70 , 7.31
higher than the cost projected for the same year in the no
annexation case. The difference results from increased costs
of public safety (for animal control) , transportation ( for
street maintenance , street sweeping and paratransit) , and
culture and leisure services (for recreation) . The projected
operating costs for this scenario are presented in Table 18 .
As in Chapter 3 and noted in the footnote to. Table 17 , the
costs shown here exclude costs that are directly offset by
revenues.
PROJECTED REVENUES
General Fund Revenues
The projected general fund revenues for this annexation with
no new development case are summarized , by fund , in Table 19 .
As the table shows, the total would increase from $5 ,752 ,381.
in 1985-1986 (excluding the revenues noted in the footnote to
Gruen Gruen +Associates _ 39 _
Table 18
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
SUMMARY OF NET OPERATING COSTS*
Culture &
General Public Transpor- Health & Leisure Community Total
Years Gov't Safety tation Welfare Services Dev't Cost
------- ------ ...... ------ ...... ...... ------ ......
1985 -1986 632,500 1,680,970 564,066 8,925 354,821 248,640 3,489,922
1986 -1987 763,017 1,977,386 660,344 9,496 535,617 264,553 4,210,413
1987 -1988 816,167 2,211,487 719,928 10,104 581,747 281,484 4,620,918
1988 -1989 868,096 2,452,330 784,486 10,751 632,146 299,499 5,047,309
1989 -1990 923,334 2,701,909 853,951 11,439 682,296 318,667 5,491,596
1990 -1991 982,090 2,934,285 929,009 12,171 735,371 339,062 5,931,987
1991 -1992 1,044,590 3,129,747 988,603 12,950 783,888 360,762 6,320,540
1992 -1993 1,111,072 3,338,209 1,052,020 13,778 835,603 383,851 6,734,534
1993 -1994 1,181,791 3,560,535 1,119,505 14,660 890,727 408,417 7,175,635
1994 -1995 1,257,016 3,822,813 1,191,319 15,599 949,484 434,556 7,670,786
1995 -1996 1,337,035 4,077,300 1,267,739 16,597 1,012,114 462,367 8,173,153
1996 -1997 1,422,154 4,338,247 1,348,875 17,659 1,076,889 491,959 8,695,783
1997 -1998 1,512,698 4,615,895 1,435,203 18,789 1,145,810 523,444 9,251,839
1998 -1999 1,609,012 4,911,312 1,527,056 19,992 1,219,142 556,945 9,843,459
1999 -2000 1,711,467 5,225,636 1,624,787 21,271 1,297,167 592,589 10,472,918
0
* Excludes costs that are offset by fees for special police services,
recreation, zoning and subdivision processing, plan check and
inspection, building permits, Zone 7 collections and special
assessment district revenues.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 19
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE*
Licenses Fines and Intergov. Charges
and Forfei- Use of Revenue- for Misc. Total
Years Taxes Permits tures Property State Services Revenues Revenue
------- ------ ...... ------ ------ ...... ------ ------ ......
1985 -1986 5,070,000 12,000 8,500 58,400 565,882 8,400 29,199 5,752,381
1986 -1987 5,796,710 13,821 9,552 65,626 585,162 9,662 29,532 6,510,064
1987 -1988 6,392,771 15,141 9,961 68,435 683,577 10,580 29,886 7,210,351
1988 -1989 7,015,869 16,595 10,388 71,369 709,715 11,589 30,263 7,865,787
1989 -1990 7,710,717 18,013 10,683 73,399 727,800 12,576 30,664 8,583,851
1990 -1991 8,400,929 19,512 10,953 75,251 744,297 13,619 31,090 9,295,651
1991 -1992 8,912,022 20,814 10,992 75,520 746,692 14,527 31,544 9,812,110
1992 -1993 9,456,665 22,203 11,031 75,789 749,087 15,496 32,027 10,362,297
1993 -1994 10,037,550 23,684 11,070 76,057 751,483 16,529 32,541 10,948,915
1994 -1995 10,656,937 25,265 11,109 76,326 753,878 17,632 33,087 11,574,234
1995 -1996 11,308,927 26,950 11,148 76,595 756,273 18,807 33,669 12,232,370
1996 -1997 12,001,777 28,675 11,148 76,595 756,273 20,011 34,288 12,928,767
l 1997 -1998 12,740,330 30,510 11,148 76,595 756,273 21,291 34,946 13,671,095
1998 -1999 13,527,413 32,463 11,148 76,595 756,273 22,654 35,647 14,462,193
1999 -2000 14,366,035 34,540 11,148 76,595 756,273 24,104 36,392 15,305,088
N
l * Excludes revenues from building permits, bus bench ad permits,
other permits, homeowners property tax relief subvention, zoning
and subdivision fees, plan check and inspection fees, park and
recreation fees, special police department service fees
Zone 7 drainage fees, special assessment districts and interest.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
the table) to $15 ,305 ,088 in the final study year of 1999-
2000 . The amount in the final year is approximately $77 ,458
greater than the comparable figure in the no annexation case.
The difference is attributable to increases in estimated
revenues from licenses and permits (animal licenses) , fines
and forfeitures (parking tickets) , use o-f property (more
frequent rentals of city-owned buildings) , state transfers
( in lieu fees and cigarette taxes) and service charges that
do not directly offset costs (sales of maps and documents) .
As in Chapter 3 , the general fund revenues projected in Table
19 exclude some revenues that directly offset costs of pro-
viding services, some revenues considered elsewhere in the
analysis and interest earned on the fund balance.
Traffic Safety Fund Revenues
Revenue from vehicle code fines is projected to be greater in
this scenario than in the no annexation case as a result of
the added annexation area population. As shown in Table 20 ,
these revenues are projected to increase from their current
level of $55 ,000 to a total of $72 , 136 in 1999-2000 . The
projected amount for 1999-2000 is approximately $317 greater
than the projected amount with no annexation.
State Gas Tax Fund Revenues
State gas tax revenues are projected to increase from
$253 ,000 in 1985-1986 to $337 ,162 in 1999-2000 in the annexa-
tion with no new development scenario . The projected amount
for 1999-2000 is $34 ,180 greater than the projection for the
Gruen Gruen +Associates — 42 —
Table 20
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM VEHICLE CODE FINES
Existing City Annexation Area Total
Revenue from
Popu- Revenue Total Popu- Revenue Total Combined
Years lation per Capita Revenue lation per Capita Revenue Area
1985 -1986 17,377 3.17 55,000 0 3.17 0 55,000
1986 -1987 19,427 3.17 61,488 100 3.17 317 61,805
1987 -1988 20,263 3.17 64,134 100 3.17 317 64,451
1988 -1989 21,136 3.17 66,898 100 3.17 317 67,214
1989 -1990 21,740 3.17 68,809 100 3.17 317 69,126
1990 -1991 22,291 3.17 70,553 100 3.17 317 70,870
1991 -1992 22,371 3.17 70,807 100 3.17 317 71,123
1992 -1993 22,451 3.17 71,060 100 3.17 317 71,376
1993 -1994 22,531 3.17 71,313 100 3.17 317 71,629
1994 -1995 22,611 3.17 71,566 100 3.17 317 71,883
1995 -1996 22,691 3.17 71,819 100 3.17 317 72,136
1996 -1997 22,691 3.17 71,819 100 3.17 317 72,136
1 1997 -1998 22,691 3.17 71,819 100 3.17 317 72,136
1998 -1999 22,691 3.17 71,819 100 3.17 317 72,136
1999 -2000 22,691 3.17 71,819 100 3.17 317 72,136
w
Revenue from vehicle code fines in the first year of the study is
55,000 Given a population of 17,377 this amount
equals an average of 3.17 per capita. The amount is not
projected to increase with inflation.
Per capita cost projections for the annexation area are based
on non-incarcerated population.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
no annexation case . The difference results solely from the
increase in population as a result of the annexation . The
projected gas tax revenue is summarized in Table 21 .
Park Dedication Fund Revenues, Other
Fund Revenues and Revenues Considered
for the First Year of the Study Only
No change in the amount of housing construction is expected
in the City of Dublin in this scenario . Therefore, projected
revenues for the park dedication fund would remain the same
as in the no annexation case , shown in Table 10 (page 25) .
Neither revenue to other funds specifically considered in the
study - the TDA fund , the OTS Grant fund , the 1984 State Park
Bond Act fund , the general revenue sharing fund , the CDBG
fund or the FAU fund ( summarized in Table 11 , page 26) nor
the revenue considered only for the first year of the study -
bus bench ad permits, homeowners' property tax relief subven-
tions or assessment district payments - would be affected by
the annexation.
Total Revenues
The total revenue projected to accrue to all city funds
during the 15-year study period is summarized , by fund or
fund group, in Table 22. Like the parallel table in Chapter
3 , this table also calculates projected interest revenue for
all funds . According to the table , projected revenues from
all sources (excluding those specifically noted in the foot-
note ) would increase from $7 , 988 , 755 in 1985-1986 to
$16 ,371 ,318 in 1999-2000 . The latter amount is approximately
$116 ,433 higher than the projection for the no annexation
Gruen Gruen +Associates
- 44 -
Table 21
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL GAS TAX FUND REVENUE
Gas Tax Gas Tax Gas Tax Total
Years Sec. 2106 Sec. 2107 Sec.2107.5 Revenue
------- ...... ...... ...... ------
1985 -1986 85,500 163,500 4,000 253,000
1986 -1987 88,250 169,071 4,000 261,321
1987 -1988 102,285 197,506 5,000 304,791
1988 -1989 106,012 205,058 5,000 316,071
1989 -1990 108,591 210,283 5,000 323,875
1990 -1991 110,944 215,050 5,000 330,994
1991 -1992 111,286 215,742 5,000 332,028
1992 -1993 111,627 216,434 6,000 334,061
1993 -1994 111,969 217,126 6,000 335,095
1994 -1995 112,310 217,818 6,000 336,129
1995 -1996 112,652 218,510 6,000 337,162
1996 -1997 112,652 218,510 6,000 337,162
1997 -1998 112,652 218,510 6,000 337,162
1998 -1999 112,652 218,510 6,000 337,162
� 1999 -2000 112,652 218,510 6,000 337,162
Ln
I
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 22
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL REVENUE IN ALL FUNDS*
Traffic State Park Revenues
General Safety Gas Tax Dedication Other Not Interest on Total
Years Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds** Projected*** Revenues Revenue**
-------6 5...... ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ...... ------
1985 -198 ,752,381 55,000 253,000 67,300 841,974 19,100 1,000,000 7,988,755
1986 -1987 6,510,064 61,805 261,321 935,163 71,832 0 313,607 8,153,792
1987 -1988 7,210,351 64,451 304,791 840,759 72,811 0 339,727 8,832,890
1988 -1989 7,865,787 67,214 316,071 0 13,780 0 330,514 8,593,366
1989 -1990 8,583,851 69,126 323,875 0 14,662 0 359,661 9,351,174
1990 -1991 9,295,651 70,870 330,994 0 15,600 0 388,525 10,101,639
1991 -1992 9,812,110 71,123 332,028 0 16,599 0 409,274 10,641,134
1992 -1993 10,362,297 71,376 334,061 0 17,661 0 431,416 11,216,812
1993 -1994 10,948,915 71,629 335,095 0 18,791 0 454,977 11,829,408
1994 -1995 11,574,234 71,883 336,129 0 19,994 0 480,090 12,482,329
1995 -1996 12,232,370 72,136 337,162 0 21,274 0 506,518 13,169,459
1996 -1997 12,928,767 72,136 337,162 0 22,635 0 534,428 13,895,128
1997 -1998 13,671,095 72,136 337,162 0 24,084 0 564,179 14,668,656
1998 -1999 14,462,193 72,136 337,162 0 25,625 0 595,885 15,493,001
1999 -2000 15,305,088 72,136 337,162 0 27,265 0 629,666 16,371,318
rn
Interest on revenues in the first year of the study is
1,000,000 In future years, interest of 10% per year
on 40% of revenues is assumed. Interest on the reserve
is calculated separately.
* Excludes all revenues assumed to offset costs directly
(see notes in previous tables).
** Transportation Development Act Fund, Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Fund, 1984 State Park Bond Act Fund, General Revenue Sharing Fund,
Community Development Block Grant Fund, Federal Aid Urban Fund.
*** Bus bench ad permits, other permits, other service charges,
reimbursement for homeowners' property tax exemption, property sales.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
case . The difference, as noted earlier , is attributable to
revenues generated by population , including both service
charges and subventions ( intergovernmental transfers) .
THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
Calculation of the Limit
Annexation of Camp Parks, Tassajara Creek Regional Park and
the County-owned property would have the effect of increasing
the city' s population above the level it would reach with no
annexation and would therefore increase the city' s appropria-
tions limit in future years. For purposes of calculating the
appropriations limit, federal prison inmates - estimated to
number 568 - are excluded from the city' s population . Table
23 projects the city' s appropriations limit through the end
of the study period for the annexation with no development
scenario . In this scenario , the limit would increase from
its current level to $24 ,472 ,077 by the year 1999-2000 .
Projected Revenues from Proceeds of Taxes
The projected city revenues from the proceeds of taxes in the
annexation with no new development case are calculated in
Table 24 . The table shows that these revenues are estimated
to total $6 ,249 ,622 in 1985-1986 and increase to $16 , 106 , 205
by 1999-2000 .
Impact of the Appropriations Limit
As in the no annexation case , revenues from the proceeds of
taxes are not projected to exceed the appropriations limit
during the study period . Therefore, the limit would have no
impact on the city' s spendable revenues.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
47 -
Table 23
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROPOSITION 4 LIMIT ON APPROPRIATIONS
Population Change
Existing Annex. in Popu- Infla-
Years City Area Total lation* tion Limit
------- ...... ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1985 -1986 15,608 0 15,608 6.4% 6,490,776
1986 -1987 17,377 0 17,377 11.3% 6.4% 7,688,928
1987 -1988 19,427 2,000 21,427 23.3% 6.4% 10,087,743
1988 -1989 20,263 2,000 22,263 3.9% 6.4% 11,152,133
1989 -1990 21,136 2,000 23,136 3.9% 6.4% 12,331,166
1990 -1991 21,740 2,000 23,740 2.6% 6.4% 13,462,888
1991 -1992 22,291 2,000 24,291 2.3% 6.4% 14,656,981
1992 -1993 22,371 2,000 24,371 0.3% 6.4% 15,646,389
1993 -1994 22,451 2,000 24,451 0.3% 6.4% 16,702,405
1994 -1995 22,531 2,000 24,531 0.3% 6.4% 17,829,504
1995 -1996 22,611 2,000 24,611 0.3% 6.4% 19,032,459
1996 -1997 22,691 2,000 24,691 0.3% 6.4% 20,316,362
1997 -1998 22,691 2,000 24,691 0.0% 6.4% 21,616,610
l 1998 -1999 22,691 2,000 24,691 0.0% 6.4% 23,000,073
1999 -2000 22,691 2,000 24,691 0.0% 6.4% 24,472,077
I The appropriations limit in the first year of the study is
6,490,776
The population of the existing city in the first year of the study for
of the study for purposes of calculating the proposition 4 limit on
appropriations is 15,608
The population for purposes of calculating the proposition 4
appropriations limit in a given year is equal to the population
in the previous year.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
The federal prison population is excluded from the population
for purposes of calculating the appropriations limit.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 24
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROCEEDS OF TAXES
Interest
Homeowners' Attributable
Intergov't Gas TDA OTS Prop. Tax to Tax
Years Taxes Rev.-State Tax Funds Grant Exemption Subtotal Proceeds Total
------ ------ ...... ------ -----• ...... ------ ...... ......
1985 -1986 5,070,000 565,882 253,000 11,440 6,000 18,300 5,924,622 325,000 6,249,622
1986 -1987 5,796,710 585,162 261,321 12,172 0 0 6,655,365 266,215 6,921,580
1987 -1988 6,392,771 683,577 304,791 12,951 0 0 7,394,091 295,764 7,689,854
1988 •1989 7,015,869 709,715 316,071 13,780 0 0 8,055,435 322,217 8,377,652
1989 -1990 7,710,717 727,800 323,875 14,662 0 0 8,777,053 351,082 9,128,135
1990 •1991 8,400,929 744,297 330,994 15,600 0 0 9,491,821 379,673 9,871,494
1991 -1992 8,912,022 746,692 332,028 16,599 0 0 10,007,340 400,294 10,407,634
1992 •1993 9,456,665 749,087 334,061 17,661 0 0 10,557,475 422,299 10,979,773
1993 -1994 10,037,550 751,483 335,095 18,791 0 0 11,142,919 445,717 11,588,636
1994 -1995 10,656,937 753,878 336,129 19,994 0 0 11,766,938 470,678 12,237,616
1995 -1996 11,308,927 756,273 337,162 21,274 0 0 12,423,636 496,945 12,920,582
1996 -1997 12,001,777 756,273 337,162 22,635 0 0 13,117,847 524,714 13,642,561
I 1997 -1998 12,740,330 756,273 337,162 24,084 0 0 13,857,850 554,314 14,412,164
1998 •1999 13,527,413 756,273 337,162 25,625 0 0 14,646,473 585,859 15,232,332
1999 -2000 14,366,035 756,273 337,162 27,265 0 0 15,486,736 619,469 16,106,205
to
I
Gruen Gruen +Associates
BALANCE BEFORE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
The balance between projected revenues and operating costs in
this scenario would increase from $4 ,498 ,833 in 1985-1986 to
$5 ,898 ,400 in 1999-2000 . The net in 1999-2000 is $45 ,702
greater than in the no annexation scenario . The projected
net balances are shown in Table 25 , in the column headed
"Net" .
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES
Capital expenditures and reserves are projected for this case
under the same assumptions as for the no annexation case . In
this case , capital expenditures would increase from
$4 ,690 ,674 in 1988-1989 ( the first year after the current
capital budget expires) to $7 ,040 , 453 in 1999-2000 . The
projected expenditures in each year are summarized in the
final column of Table 25 .
The status of the reserve fund is also shown in Table 25 , in
the column headed "Reserve at Beginning of Year" . The table
indicates that the fund would amount to $11 ,420 , 527 from the
year 1990-1991 through the end of the study period .
SUMMARY FIGURES TO BE USED FOR COMPARISON
Table 26 presents the summary figures for this annexation
with no development case and compares them to those for the
no annexation case. The table indicates that total operating
costs, capital expenditures and total revenues for the study
period as well as the net of total revenues over total expen-
ditures for the 15-year period and the net balance in the
final year are greater than in the no annexation case .
Similiarly, the reserve fund levels out at a higher amount.
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 50 -
Table 25
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: No Annexation
Run Date: August 23, 1985
BALANCE .BETWEEN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES; Capital Expenditures
CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Budgeted or
Revenues Total Reserve a Interest Available
Total Not Spendable Operating Beginning on from Interest Police
Years Revenues* Spendable Revenues* Costs Net of Year Reserve and Surplus Cars Total
------- ...... ...... ...... ------ ------ ...... ------ ...... ------ ------
1985 -1986 7,988,755 0 7,988,755 3,489,922 4,498,833 9,418,714 5,666,556 0 5,666,556
1986 -1987 8,153,792 0 8,153,792 4,210,413 3,943,380 8,250,991 825,099 3,543,865 27,664 3,571,529
1987 -1988 8,832,890 0 8,832,890 4,620,918 4,211,972 9,447,941 944,794 3,143,831 14,717 3,158,548
1988 -1989 8,593,366 0 8,593,366 5,047,309 3,546,058 11,446,160 1,144,616 4,690,674 0 4,690,674
1989 -1990 9,351,174 0 9,351,174 5,491,596 3,859,578 11,446,160 1,144,616 5,004,194 25,633 5,029,827
1990 -1991 10,101,639 0 10,101,639 5,931,987 4,169,652 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,311,705 0 5,311,705
1991 -1992 10,641,134 0 10,641,134 6,320,540 4,320,595 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,462,647 0 5,462,647
1992 -1993 11,216,812 0 11,216,812 6,734,534 4,482,278 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,624,331 0 5,624,331
1993 -1994 11,829,408 0 11,829,408 7,175,635 4,653,773 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,795,825 0 5,795,825
1994 -1995 12,482,329 0 12,482,329 7,670,786 4,811,543 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,953,595 0 5,953,595
1995 -1996 13,169,459 0 13,169,459 8,173,153 4,996,306 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,138,359 0 6,138,359
1996 -1997 13,895,128 0 13,895,128 8,695,783 5,199,345 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,341,398 0 6,341,398
1997 -1998 14,668,656 0 14,668,656 9,251,839 5,416,817 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,558,869 0 6,558,869
1998 -1999 15,493,001 0 15,493,001 9,843,459 5,649,542 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,791,594 0 6,791,594
I 1999 -2000 16,371,318 0 16,371,318 10,472,918 5,898,400 11,420,527 1,142,053 7,040,453 0 7,040,453
Ul
H * Excludes interest on reserve fund.
N
I The reserve at the beginning of the first year in the study is
9,418,714
The interest rate earned on reserves is assumed to be 10% per year.
Expenditures for capital improvements in the first year of the study are
6,718,776 of which 1,052,220 are offset by contributions
and reimbursements. These contributions leave 5,666,556 to be
funded by other sources in the first year. Expenditures are projected
to total 3,330,700 in the year ending in 1987
and 2,777,000 in the year ending in 1988
with no offsetting contributions. Thereafter, expenditures for .
capital improvements will be made as permitted by the balance
between other costs and revenues.
The police department will add vehicles according to this schedule:
Year End Number Capital Cost Annual Cost
........ ...... ............ ...........
1987 2 13,000 15,000
1988 1 13,000 15,000
1990 1 13,000 15,000
1990 1 7,000 7,000
The capital costs for vehicles are added to the capital budget.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
TABLE 26
Summary Figures for the
Annexation with No Development Case
Annexation
With No
Comparison for 15 Years Development
Total Operating Expenses
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 $103,130,792
Total Capital Expenditures
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 83,135,910
Total Revenues*
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 188,268,515
Net Balance Between Revenues
and Total Expenditures,
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 2,001 ,813
Comparison for 1999-2000
Net Balance Between Revenues
and Operating Expenses 5,898,400
Reserve Fund 11 ,420,527
Reserve Fund as a Percent of .
Operating Expenses 109.0
*Includes interest on reserve fund.
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 52 -
CHAPTER 5
THE FISCAL CONDITION OF DUBLIN WITH ANNEXATION,
ASSUMING DEVELOPMENT IN THE ANNEXATION AREA
If the proposed annexation is approved , it is possible that
the City of Dublin will redesignate the permitted land uses
on the County-owned property . This chapter presents the
fiscal projection for the City of Dublin assuming that the
annexation is approved and that 600 acres of the County-owned
property are redesignated to permit the development of busi-
ness park-type uses.
Like the previous two chapters , this chapter begins with a
description of development in the study area . It then des-
cribes the projected operating costs that the city would
incur in serving both the existing city and the annexation
area and the revenues that the city would collect from the
combined area, and compares the projected revenues to pro-
jected costs. Next, it addresses the impact of the appropri-
ations limit on spendable revenues. Finally, - it projects the
level of the reserve fund and the amount of funds that would
be available for capital expenditures after the end of the
current capital improvement program . The detailed tables
that provide the basis for information presented in this
chapter are contained in Appendix C.
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
Development in the Existing City of Dublin
Annexation of the Camp Parks-regional park-County area is not
expected to affect the course of development within the
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 53 -
existing Dublin city limits. Thus, in this scenario , devel-
opment in the city as it is now is projected to proceed as
described in Tables 2, 3 and 4 (pages 14 , 15 and 16) .
Characteristics of the Annexation Area
Housing , Population and
Nonresidential Development
If development is permitted in the annexation area , it
will be limited to nonresidential uses. Therefore , no hous-
ing units would be built , and the population of the area
would remain at its initial level of 2 ,568 .
If 600 acres of the County-owned land is redesignated
and rezoned to permit business park development , two differ-
ent intensities of development would be permitted . Approxi-
mately 400 acres would permit "high-intensity" development ,
allowing coverage ratios of between 35 percent and 40 per-
cent, and approximately 200 acres would permit "low inten-
sity" development, with coverage ratios between 25 percent
and 37 percent. For this study, it is assumed that develop-
ment of this 600 acres would begin in 1990-1991 and require
20 years to be completed . Under this assumption , about one-
half of the acreage would be developed by the end of the
study period . It is also assumed that 5 percent of the
developed space would be occupied by retail uses that serve
the business parks and that the remaining 95 percent would be
divided evenly between development with the characteristics
of office space and development with the characteristics of
industrial space. No hotels or automobile dealerships are
projected to be located in the annexation area . The amount
of development expected in each year is summarized in Table
27 .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 54 -
Table 27
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS: ANNEXATION AREA
Housing Popu- Office Industrial Hotel Retail' Auto Mr.
Years Units lation Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage
------ ...... ...... ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1985 -1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1986 -1987 0 2,568 0 0 0 0 0
1987 -1988 0 2,568 0 0 0 0 0
1988 -1989 0 2,568 0 0 0 0 0
1989 -1990 0 2,568 0 0 0 0 0
1990 -1991 0 2,568 0 0 0 0 0
1991 -1992 0 2,568 14 14 0 2 0
1992 -1993 0 2,568 29 29 0 3 0
1993 -1994 0 2,568 43 43 0 5 0
1994 -1995 0 2,568 57 57 0 6 0
1995 -1996 0 2,568 71 71 0 8 0
1996 -1997 0 2,568 86 86 0 9 0
1997 -1998 0 2,568 100 100 0 11 0
1998 -1999 0 2,568 114 114 0 12 0
1 1999 -2000 0 2,568 128 128 0 14 0
Ln The following amounts of development are projected to occur
Ln over a 20 year period beginning,
1 5 years after the start of the study period:
Residential: 0 units
Office: 285 acres
Industrial: 285 acres
Retail: 30 acres
Auto Dlrs: 0 acres
Hotel: 0 acres
The population is projected to be 2,568 in 1990
The minimum population of the annexation area for subventions is 117
through the year ending 1990
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Streets , Lights and Trees
As development occurs in the annexation area , new
streets will be built to provide access . It is assumed that,
by the time all 600 acres on which development is permitted
have been built out , there will be 9 .8 additional miles of
roads and 15 traffic signals in the annexation area . The
timing of the road additions and traffic signals and the
associated curb miles, median miles, street lights and street
trees are detailed in Table 28 .
As in Chapter 4 , it is assumed that the initial cost and
revenue changes that result from the annexation will occur in
the fiscal year 1986-1987 .
PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS
In this annexation with development scenario , the city ' s
operating costs,net of costs directly offset by revenues , are
projected to increase from $3 ,489 ,922 to in 1985-1986 to
$11 ,322 ,163 in 1999-2000 , as shown in Table 29 . This total
cost for the final year of the study period is approximately
$919 ,980 higher than the cost projected for the same year in
the no annexation case . The difference results from in-
creased costs of public safety (for police services , animal
control , traffic signals and street lighting) , transportation
( for street maintenance , street sweeping , street tree mainte-
nance , street landscaping maintenance and paratransit) ,
health and welfare ( for vector control ) , and culture and
leisure services (for recreation) . The cost is approximately
$849 , 250 greater than in the case of annexation with no
development.
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 56 -
Table 28
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PUBLIC WORKS CHARACTERISTICS: ANNEXATION AREA
Street Curb Street Traffic Street Miles of
Years Miles Miles Lights Signals Trees Median
...--- ------ ------ ------ . ...... ......
1985 -1986 0 0 0 0 0 0
1986 -1987 4 0 0 0 0 0
1987 -1988 4 0 0 0 0 0
1988 -1989 4 0 0 0 0 0
1989 -1990 4 0 0 0 0 0
1990 -1991 4 0 0 0 0 0
1991 -1992 9 18 117 1 115 4
1992 -1993 9 20 129 2 345 5
1993 -1994 10 22 142 2 691 5
1994 -1995 10 24 155 3 1,152 6
1995 -1996 11 26 168 4 1,727 6
1996 -1997 11 28 180 5 2,418 7
1997 -1998 12 30 193 5 3,224 7
1998 -1999 12 32 206 6 4,145 8
1 1999 -2000 13 34 219 7 5,182 8
vThe following amounts of development are projected to occur
over a 1 year period beginning
1 5 years after the start of the study period:
Street miles:
Res.. 0
Nonres.: 4
Total: 4
Curb miles: 16
Median miles: 4
The following amounts of development are projected to occur
over a 20 year period beginning
5 years after the start of the study period:
Street miles:
Res.. 0.0
Nonres.: 9.8
Total: 9.8
Curb miles: 39.2
Median miles: 9.8
Traffic signals: 15.0
The following standards for development are assumed to apply:
Street lights: 26 per mile.
Street trees: 115 per residential mile.
235 per nonresidential mile.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 29
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
SUMMARY OF NET OPERATING COSTS*
Culture &
General Public Transpor- Health & Leisure Community Total
Years Gov't Safety tation Welfare Services Dev't Cost
------- ------ ------ ...... ...... ------ ...... ......
1985 -1986 632,500 1,680,970 564,066 8,925 354,821 248,640 3,489,922
1986 -1987 763,017 1,977,386 657,161 18,992 535,617 264,553 4,216,726
1987 -1988 816,167 2,211,487 716,541 20,208 581,747 281,484 4,627,635
1988 -1989 868,096 2,452,330 780,883 21,501 632,146 299,499 5,054,456
1989 -1990 923,334 2,701,909 850,118 22,877 682,296 318,667 5,499,201
1990 -1991 982,090 3,023,741 924,930 24,341 735,371 339,062 6,029,536
1991 -1992 1,044,590 3,243,776 1,087,284 25,899 783,888 360,762 6,546,199
1992 -1993 1,111,072 3,479,590 1,171,340 27,557 835,603 383,851 7,009,014
1993 -1994 1,181,791 3,732,302 1,263,031 29,320 890,727 408,417 7,505,589
1994 -1995 1,257,016 4,028,276 1,363,075 31,197 949,484 434,556 8,063,605
1995 -1996 1,337,035 4,320,069 1,472,256 33,194 1,012,114 462,367 8,637,035
1996 -1997 1,422,154 4,622,255 1,591,242 35,318 1,076,889 491,959 9,239,818
1997 -1998 1,512,698 4,945,427 1,721,132 37,578 1,145,810 523,444 9,886,089
1 1998 -1999 1,609,012 5,291,031 1,862,942 39,983 1,219,142 556,945 10,579,055
1999 -2000 1,711,467 5,660,616 2,017,781 42,542 1,297,167 592,589 11,322,163
Ln
00
1 * Excludes costs that are offset by fees for special police services,
recreation, zoning and subdivision processing, plan check and
inspection, building permits, Zone 7 collections and special
assessment district revenues.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
PROJECTED REVENUES
General Fund Revenues
Table 30 summarizes the projected general fund revenues for
this analysis of the proposed annexation with business park
development . It shows that total revenue ( excluding the
revenues noted in the footnote to the table) would increase
from $5 ,752 ,381 in 1985-1986 to $16 , 200 ,869 in 1999-2000 .
This total for the final year is approximately $973 , 239
greater than the amount for the final year in the no annexa-
tion case . The difference is attributable to the same in-
creases in estimated revenues as in the annexation with no
development case plus added revenues from taxes (property
taxes, sales taxes, electric franchise fees and gas franchise
fees) . The total estimated revenue for 1999-2000 is $895 ,781
greater than the projected total for the annexation with no
development case .
Traffic Safety Fund Revenues
and State Gas Tax Fund Revenues
Revenue from vehicle code fines is projected to be the same
in this scenario as in the annexation with no development
case . These revenues , shown in Table 20 ( page 43 ) , are
projected to exceed the projected amount for the no annexa-
tion case by approximately $317 in 1999-2000 . This estimate
is conservatively low in that it does not anticipate added
fines paid by business park-related traffic .
State gas tax revenues are similarly projected to be the same .
in this scenario as in the annexation with no development
case , increasing from $253 ,000 in 1985-1986 to $337 , 162 in
Gruen Gruen +Associates
- 59 -
s
Table 30
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin .
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE*
Licenses Fines and Intergov. Charges
and Forfei- Use of Revenue- for Misc. Total
Years Taxes Permits tures Property State Services Revenues Revenue
------- ------ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
6 5
1985 -198 ,070,000 12,000 8,500 58,400 565,882 8,400 29,199 5,752,381
1986 -1987 5,796,710 13,821 9,552 65,626 585,162 9,662 29,532 6,510,064
1987 -1988 6,392,771 15,141 9,961 68,435 683,577 10,580 29,886 7,210,351
1988 -1989 7,015,869 16,595 10,388 71,369 709,715 11,589 30,263 7,865,787
1989 -1990 7,710,717 18,013 10,683 73,399 727,800 12,576 30,664 8,583,851
1990 -1991 8,400,929 19,512 10,953 75,251 744,297 13,619 31,090 9,295,651
1991 -1992 8,978,514 20,814 10,992 75,520 746,692 14,527 31,544 9,878,603
1992 -1993 9,597,016 22,203 11,031 75,789 749,087 15,496 32,027 10,502,649
1993 -1994 10,258,838 23,684 11,070 76,057 751,483 16,529 32,541 11,170,202
1994 -1995 10,966,887 25,265 11,109 76,326 753,878 17,632 33,087 11,884,184
1995 -1996 11,715,968 26,950 11,148 76,595 756,273 18,807 33,669 12,639,410
1996 -1997 12,515,094 28,675 11,148 76,595 756,273 20,011 34,288 13,442,084
1997 -1998 13,369,929 30,510 11,148 76,595 756,273 21,291 34,946 14,300,694
1 1998 -1999 14,284,181 32,463 11,148 76,595 756,273 22,654 35,647 15,218,961
1999 -2000 15,261,816 34,540 11,148 76,595 756,273 24,104 36,392 16,200,869
0
I * Excludes revenues from building permits, bus bench ad permits,
other permits, homeowners property tax relief subvention, zoning
and subdivision fees, plan check and inspection fees, park and
recreation fees, special police department service fees
Zone 7 drainage fees, special assessment districts and interest.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
1999-2000 . These revenues, shown in Table 21 (page 45) are
$34 ,180 greater in the latter year than the projection for
the no annexation case .
Park Dedication Fund Revenues, Other
Fund Revenues and Revenues Considered
for the First Year of the Study Only
Revenue to all other funds specifically considered in the
study - the Park Dedication fund , the TDA fund , the OTS Grant
fund , the 1984 State Park Bond Act fund , the general revenue
sharing fund , the CDBG fund and the FAU fund - is unaffected
by the development of business park uses in the annexation
area . Similarly, the revenue considered only for the first
year of the study - bus bench ad permits , homeowners' pro-
perty tax relief subventions and assessment district payments
- would be unaffected by the annexation.
Total Revenues
The total revenue projected to be collected in all city funds
in the annexation with development scenario is summarized in
Table 31 . Once again, this table calculates projected inter-
est revenue for all funds . The table shows that revenues
from all sources, excluding those specifically noted in the
footnote , are projected to increase from $7 ,988 ,755 in 1985-
1986 to $17 ,302 ,930 in 1999-2000 . The amount in 1999-2000 is
approximately $1 ,048 ,045 higher than the amount for the no
annexation case and $931 ,612 higher than the amount for the
annexation with no development case in the same year .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 61 -
s
Table 31
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
TOTAL REVENUE IN ALL FUNDS*
Traffic State Park Revenues
General Safety Gas Tax Dedication Other Not Interest on Total
Years Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds** Projected*** Revenues Revenue**
------- ------ ------ ...... ...... ...... ------ ...... ......
1985 -1986 5,752,381 55,000 253,000 67,300 841,974 19,100 1,000,000 7,988,755
1986 -1987 6,510,064 61,805 261,321 935,163 71,832 0 313,607 8,153,792
1987 -1988 7,210,351 64,451 304,791 840,759 72,811 0 339,727 8,832,890
1988 -1989 7,865,787 67,214 316,071 0 13,780 0 330,514 8,593,366
1989 -1990 8,583,851 69,126 323,875 0 14,662 0 359,661 9,351,174
1990 -1991 9,295,651 70,870 330,994 0 15,600 0 388,525 10,101,639
1991 -1992 9,878,603 71,123 332,028 0 16,599 0 411,934 10,710,286
1992 -1993 10,502,649 71,376 334,061 0 17,661 0 437,030 11,362,777
1993 -1994 11,170,202 71,629 335,095 0 18,791 0 463,829 12,059,547
1994 -1995 11,884,184 71,883 336,129 0 19,994 0 492,488 12,804,677
1995 -1996 12,639,410 72,136 337,162 0 21,274 0 522,799 13,592,781
1996 -1997 13,442,084 72,136 337,162 0 22,635 0 554,961 14,428,978
1997 -1998 14,300,694 72,136 337,162 0 24,084 0 589,363 15,323,439
1 1998 -1999 15,218,961 72,136 337,162 0 25,625 0 626,155 16,280,040
M 1999 -2000 16,200,869 72,136 337,162 0 27,265 0 665,497 17,302,930
N
1 Interest on revenues in the first year of the study is
1,000,000 In future years, interest of 10% per year
on 40% of revenues is assumed. Interest on the reserve
is calculated separately.
* Excludes all revenues assumed to offset costs directly
(see notes in previous tables).
** Transportation Development Act Fund, Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Fund, 1984 State Park Bond Act Fund, General Revenue Sharing Fund,
Community Development Block Grant Fund, Federal Aid Urban Fund.
*** Bus bench ad permits, other permits, other service charges,
reimbursement for homeowners' property tax exemption, property sales.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
Calculation of the Limit
The development of nonresidential uses in the annexation area
would have no impact on the City of Dublin ' s appropriations
limit , because the limit is adjusted only in response to
income growth and inflation . As shown for the annexation
with no development case in Table 23 (page 48) , therefore ,
the appropriations limit in this scenario would increase from
its current level to $24 ,472 ,077 by the year 1999-2000 .
Projected Revenues from Proceeds of Taxes
The projected city revenues from the proceeds of taxes in the
annexation with no new development case are calculated in
Table 32 . The table shows that these revenues are estimated
to increase from $6 ,249 ,622 in 1985-1986 to $17 ,037 ,818 in
1999-2000 .
Impact of the Appropriations Limit
As in the two other cases , revenues from the proceeds of
taxes are not projected to exceed the appropriations limit
during the study period and would consequently have no impact
on spendable revenues.
BALANCE BEFORE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
The balance between projected revenues and projected operat-
ing costs in the case of annexation with development would
increase from $4 ,498 ,833 in 1985-1986 to $5 ,980 ,767 in 1999-
Gruen Gruen + Associates _ 63 -
Table 32
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
PROCEEDS OF TAXES
Interest
Homeowners' Attributable
Intergov't Gas TDA OTS Prop. Tax to Tax
Years Taxes Rev.-State Tax Funds Grant Exemption Subtotal Proceeds Total
------- ------ ...... ...... ...... ...... ------ ...... ------ ......
1985 -1986 5,070,000 565,882 253,000 11,440 6,000 18,300 5,924,622 325,000 6,249,622
1986 -1987 5,796,710 585,162 261,321 12,172 0 0 6,655,365 266,215 6,921,580
1987 -1988 6,392,771 683,577 304,791 12,951 0 0 7,394,091 295,764 7,689,854
1988 -1989 7,015,869 709,715 316,071 13,780 0 0 8,055,435 322,217 8,377,652
1989 -1990 7,710,717 727,800 323,875 14,662 0 0 8,777,053 351,082 9,128,135
1990 -1991 8,400,929 744,297 330,994 15,600 0 0 9,491,821 379,673 9,871,494
1991 -1992 8,978,514 746,692 332,028 16,599 0 0 10,073,832 402,953 10,476,786
1992 -1993 9,597,016 749,087 334,061 17,661 0 0 10,697,826 427,913 11,125,739
1993 -1994 10,258,838 751,483 335,095 18,791 0 0 11,364,207 454,568 11,818,775
1994 -1995 10,966,887 753,878 336,129 19,994 0 0 12,076,888 483,076 12,559,964
1995 -1996 11,715,968 756,273 337,162 21,274 0 0 12,830,677 513,227 13,343,904
1996 -1997 12,515,094 756,273 337,162 22,635 0 0 13,631,165 545,247 14,176,411
1997 -1998 13,369,929 756,273 337,162 24,084 0 0 14,487,449 579,498 15,066,947
1998 -1999 14,284,181 756,273 337,162 25,625 0 0 15,403,242 616,130 16,019,372
1999 -2000 15,261,816 756,273 337,162 27,265 0 0 16,382,517 655,301 17,037,818
I
Gruen Gruen +Associates
2000 . The year-by-year balances are shown in the "Net"
column of Table 33 . The projected net balance in 1999-2000
is $128 ,069 greater than the projected net for no annexation
case and $82 ,367 greater than the projected net for the
annexation with no development case .
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESERVES
The projected capital expenditures and reserves for this
scenario are shown in Table 33 . In that table , the reserve
fund is set at $11 ,446 ,160 for the year 1989-1990 and at
$11 ,420 ,567 for years beginning in 1990-1991 . These amounts
are identical to those shown for the annexation with no
development case in Table 25 ( page 51 ) . The resulting
projection of capital expenditures increases from $3 ,780 , 164
in 1988-1989 to $7 ,122 ,820 in 1999-2000 .
SUMMARY FIGURES TO BE USED FOR COMPARISON
Table 34 presents the summary figures for the annexation case
and compares them ' to those for the no annexation and annexa-
tion with no development cases . As the table indicates ,
total operating expenses and total revenues would be highest
in the annexation with development case . Total capital
expenditures would be greater than in the no annexation case
but less than in the annexation with no development scenario .
The net balance for the entire study period and the reserve
fund would total the same amount as in the annexation with no
development case , as assumed in this projection . The net
balance in the final year of the study period would be more
favorable than in either of the other two cases.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
65 -
Table 33
Fiscal Model for the City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
BALANCE BETWEEN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES; Capital Expenditures
CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
(Page 1) Budgeted or
Revenues Total Reserve @ Interest Available
Total Not Spendable Operating Beginning on from Interest Police
Years Revenues* Spendable Revenues* Costs Net of Year Reserve** and Surplus Cars Total
------- ...... ...... ------ ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
1985 -1986 7,988,755 0 7,988,755 3,489,922 4,498,833 9,418,714 5,666,556 0 5,666,556
1986 -1987 8,153,792 0 8,153,792 4,216,726 3,937,066 8,250,991 825,099 4,278,025 27,664 4,305,689
1987 -1988 8,832,890 0 8,832,890 4,627,635 4,205,255 8,707,468 870,747 3,143,831 14,717 3,158,548
1988 -1989 8,593,366 0 8,593,366 5,054,456 3,538,910 10,624,921 1,062,492 3,780,164 0 3,780,164
1989 -1990 9,351,174 0 9,351,174 5,499,201 3,851,973 11,446,160 1,144,616 4,954,295 42,294 4,996,589
1990 -1991 10,101,639 0 10,101,639 6,029,536 4,072,104 11,446,160 1,144,616 5,242,353 0 5,242,353
1991 -1992 10,710,286 0 10,710,286 6,546,199 4,164,087 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,306,140 0 5,306,140
1992 -1993 11,362,777 0 11,362,777 7,009,014 4,353,764 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,495,817 0 5,495,817
1993 -1994 12,059,547 0 12,059,547 7,505,589 4,553,958 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,696,010 0 5,696,010
1994 -1995 12,804,677 0 12,804,677 8,063,605 4,741,072 11,420,527 1,142,053 5,883,125 0 5,883,125
1995 -1996 13,592,781 0 13,592,781 8,637,035 4,955,746 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,097,799 0 6,097,799
1996 -1997 14,428,978 0 14,428,978 9,239,818 5,189,160 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,331,213 0 6,331,213
1997 -1998 15,323,439 0 15,323,439 9,886,089 5,437,350 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,579,402 0 6,579,402
1998 -1999 16,280,040 0 16,280,040 10,579,055 5,700,985 11,420,527 1,142,053 6,843,038 0 6,843,038
I 1999 -2000 17,302,930 0 17,302,930 11,322,163 51980,767 11,420,527 1,142,053 7,122,820 0 7,122,820
rn
rn Excludes interest on reserve fund.
I ** Sets reserve at the same level as in the annexation with no development case.
The reserve at the beginning of the first year in the study is
9,418,714
The interest rate earned on reserves is assumed to be 10% per year.
Expenditures for capital improvements in'-the first year of the study are
6,718,776 of which 1,052,220 are offset by contributions
and reimbursements. These contributions leave 5,666,556 to be
funded by other sources in the first year. Expenditures are projected
to total 4,020,700 in the year ending in 1987 1989
and 2,777,000 in the year ending in 1988
with no offsetting contributions. Thereafter, expenditures for
capital improvements are projected to average 3850000
per year (adjusted for inflation).
(Notes for this table are continued on the following page.)
Gruen Gruen + Associates
Table 33
Fiscal Model for the .City of Dublin
Scenario: 600 Acres of Dev. over 20 Years in Annexation Area
Run Date: August 23, 1985
BALANCE BETWEEN OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES,
CALCULATION OF POTENTIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
(Page 2)
The police department will add vehicles according to this schedule:
Year End Number Capital Cost Annual Cost
-------- ...... ............ .----------
1987 2 13,000 15,000
1988 1 13,000 15,000
1990 1 13,000 15,000
1990 1 7,000 7,000
The police department anticipates that the cost to serve
the annexation area in this scenario will be 0
After development in the area begins, the department will require
a total of 3 officers and 1 vehicle, to be
added over 20 year development period, which begins
I 5 years after the start of the study period.
The capital costs for vehicles are added to the capital budget.
rn
(L The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen + Associates
TABLE 34
Summary Figures for the Annexation with Development Case
Annexation
With
Comparison for 15 Years Development
Total Operating Expenses
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 $107,706,043
Total Capital Expenditures
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 82,505,262
Total Revenues*
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 192,213,118
Net Balance Between Revenues
and Total Expenditures,
1985-1986 through 1999-2000 2,001 ,813
Comparison for 1999-2000
Net Balance Between Operating
Expenses and Revenues 5,980,767
Reserve Fund 11 ,420,527
Reserve Fund as a Percent of
Operating Expenses 100.9
*Includes interest on reserve fund.
Source: Gruen Gruen + Associates
Gruen Gruen +Associates _ 67 _ 4
CHAPTER 6
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION ON THE
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
If the proposed annexation of Camp Parks , Tassajara Creek
Regional Park and the County-owned property to the City of
Dublin is approved , the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) would be responsible for providing the following
services : fire protection , garbage collection , sanitary
sewers and sewage treatment . Based on answers provided to
the letter sent by the City of Dublin , it appears that the
only fiscal impact of the annexation would result from a
change in fire protection activity.
CHANGE IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR FIRE PROTECTION
DSRSD is currently responsible for fire protection in the
City of Dublin but not in the proposed annexation area . If
the annexation takes place, then the DSRSD service area would
be expanded to encompass it.
COST OF SERVICE
The cost of providing fire service to the annexation area
will depend on the amount of development that occurs in the
area. Two cases are discussed here : a case in which the
annexation is approved but no development occurs and a case
in which 600 acres of the County-owned property are developed
into business park uses.
Gruen Gruen +Associates _ 68 _
An
Annexation With No Development
In the annexation with no development case , the DSRSD Fire
Department would need to acquire a grass fire truck to fight
fires on open lands. The cost of such a truck is estimated
by Chief Phillips to be $85 ,000 . The purchase would be
funded by capital improvement fees, which are charged to new
development at the rate of $600 per commercial and industrial
development (for multi-story buildings , the fee is increased
by six percent) . There would be no additional staff cost
associated with the acquisition of the grass truck , because
it would be located in an existing engine company.
Annexation with Development
In the development case , the DSRSD Fire Department would also
have to acquire a grass truck. In addition, when development
in the annexation area begins, the Department would have to
acquire a site and build a new station to serve the new
development, and then would have to staff and .operate the new
station. Chief Phillips estimates the cost of the site and
station to be $550 ,000 in 1985-1986 . He further estimates
that the station would be required in 1990-1991 . Given
average inflation of 6 . 4 percent per year , as assumed
throughout this study, the cost of the station at that time
would be $750 ,017 . This expense would be funded by capital
improvement fees.
Chief Phillips estimates that the cost of personnel for the
new station would be $546 ,000 per year and the operating cost
would be $65 ,000 per year in 1985-1986 dollars. By the time
the station is built in 1990-1991 , inflation will have raised
these costs to $744 ,562 per year for the station and $80 ,638
per year for personnel .
Gruen Gruen +Associates - 69 -
REVENUE
In the no development case , DSRSD would receive no additional
revenue . In the development case , the district would receive
revenue from capital improvement fees and from the property
tax .
Capital Improvement Fees
As noted above , capital improvement fees are charged by the
district on new development at the rate of $600 per dwelling
unit and $600 per 2 ,000 square feet of commercial and indus-
trial building space, with a six percent surcharge for multi-
story structures. It is assumed in this analysis that one-
third of the development in the annexation area is of low
intensity (coverage between 25 and 37 percent , averaging 31
percent) and that the remaining two-thirds is of high inten-
sity (coverage between 35 and 40 percent , averaging 37 . 5
percent) . No multi-story development is assumed . Develop-
ment is assumed to occur at an average rate of 30 acres per
year beginning in 1990-1991 ( these assumptions are used in
all the fiscal analyses for this annexation) . Given these
assumptions , once development begins it would generate an
average of about $98 ,400 per year in capital improvement
fees. These fees would total $984 ,021 (assuming no change in
the fee schedule) by the year 1999-2000 , the end of the study
period for this analysis , when development would be half
built out . The calculation of revenues from the capital
improvement fee is shown in Table 35 .
Gruen Gruen +Associates
- 70 -
Table 35
Scenario: 600 Acres of Development Over 20 Years in Annex. Area
Revenue to DSRSD
ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FEES FOR THE ANNEXATION AREA
Fee a
$600.00 Cumulative
Sq. Ft. per Capital
Total Added 2,000 Improvement
Years Acreage This Year Sq. Ft. Fee
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
1985 -1986 0 0 0 0
1986 -1987 0 0 0 0
1987 -1988 0 0 0 0
1988 -1989 0 0 0 0
1989 -1990 0 0 0 0
1990 -1991 30 328,007 98,402 98,402
1991 -1992 60 328,007 98,402 196,804
1992 -1993 90 328,007 98,402 295,206
1993 -1994 120 328,007 98,402 393,608
1994 -1995 150 328,007 98,402 492,011
1995 -1996 180 328,007 98,402 590,413
1996 -1997 210 328,007 98,402 688,815
1 1997 -1998 240 328,007 98,402 787,217
v 1998 -1999 270 328,007 98,402 885,619
1999 -2000 300 328,007 98,402 984,021
2000 -2001 330 328,007 98,402 1,082,423
1 2001 -2002 360 328,007 98,402 1,180,825
2002 -2003 390 328,007 98,402 1,279,227
2003 -2004 420 328,007 98,402 1,377,629
2004 -2005 450 328,007 98,402 1,476,032
2005 -2006 480 328,007 98,402 1,574,434
2006 -2007 510 328,007 98,402 1,672,836
2007 -2008 540 328,007 98,402 1,771,238
2008 -2009 570 328,007 98,402 1,869,640
2009 -2010 600 328,007 98,402 1,968,042
The following amounts of development are projected to occur
over a 20 year period beginning
5 years after the start of the study period:
Office: 300 acres
Industrial: 300 acres
Assumes the following average floor area ratios:
Low intensity: 31.0%
High intensity: 37.5%
Assumes the following distribution of intensities:
Low intensity: 33%
High intensity: 67%
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Property Tax Revenue
The amount of property tax revenue received will depend on
the amount of development. It is assumed in this study that
the average value of business park space may be estimated at
$91 per square foot in 1985-1986 . Assuming the coverages
outlined in the capital improvements section of this chapter ,
the value added annually would increase from $40 ,703 ,600 in
the first year of development to about $71 , 139 ,000 in 1999-
2000 . The assessed value and resulting property tax on
existing development would increase at a rate no greater than
two percent per year , as specifed by Article 13A of the
California Constitution. DSRSD currently receives an average
of 21 .232169 percent of the property tax generated within the
City of Dublin, according to McDonald & Associates.
Assuming that the DSRSD receives the same percentage of the
property tax in the annexation area that it currently re-
ceives in the city and that development occurs as assumed in
Table 26 (page 52) , property tax revenues collected by the
district would increase from about $86 ,400 in the first year
of development (1990-1991) to $1 ,258 ,200 in the last year of
the study period . The projected revenues are detailed in
Table 36 .
BALANCE BETWEEN COSTS AND REVENUES
Capital Costs and Revenues
The projected balance between capital costs and revenues in
the case of annexation with development is calculated in
Table 37 . The table shows that the capital improvement fees
from development in the annexation area would total more than
Gruen Gruen +Associates
- 72 -
Table 36
Revenue to DSRSD
Scenario: 600 Acres of Development Over 20 Years in the Annex. Area
PROPERTY TAX ESTIMATE FOR THE ANNEXATION AREA
Average Prop. Tax
Assessed Assuming
Sq. Ft. Value per Value 2% DSRSD's
Total Added Added Added Incr. & No Share 51
Years Acreage This Year Sq. Ft. This Year Turnover 21.232169%
------ ...... ------ ------ ------ ...... ------
1985 -1986 0 0 91 0 0 0
1986 -1987 0 0 97 0 0 0
1987 -1988 0 0 103 0 0 0
1988 -1989 0 0 110 0 0 0
1989 -1990 0 0 117 0 0 0
1990 -1991 30 328,007 124 40,703,583 407,036 86,423
1991 -1992 60 328,007 132 43,308,613 848,263 180,105
1992 -1993 90 328,007 140 46,080,364 1,326,032 281,545
1993 -1994 120 328,007 149 49,029,507 1,842,847 391,276
1994 -1995 150 328,007 159 52,167,396 2,401,378 509,865
1995 -1996 180 328,007 169 55,506,109 3,004,467 637,913
1996 -1997 210 328,007 180 59,058,500 3,655,141 776,066
1997 -1998 240 328,007 192 62,838,244 4,356,626 925,006
1998 -1999 270 328,007 204 66,859,892 5,112,358 1,085,464
v 1999 -2000 300 328,007 217 71,138,925 5,925,994 1,258,217
2000 -2001 330 328,007 231 75,691,816 6,801,432 1,444,092
2001 -2002 360 328,007 246 80,536,092 7,742,822 1,643,969
2002 -2003 390 328,007 261 85,690,402 8,754,582 1,858,788
2003 -2004 420 328,007 278 91,174,588 9,841,420 2,089,547
2004 -2005 450 328,007 296 97,009,761 11,008,346 2,337,311
2005 -2006 480 328,007 315 103,218,386 12,260,697 2,603,212
2006 -2007 510 328,007 335 109,824,363 13,604,154 2,888,457
2007 -2008 540 328,007 356 116,853,122 15,044,769 3,194,331
2008 -2009 570 328,007 379 124,331,722 16,588,981 3,522,201
2009 -2010 600 328,007 403 132,288,952 18,243,650 3,873,523
The following amounts of development are projected to occur
over a 20 year period beginning
5 years after the start of the study period:
Office: 300 acres
Industrial: 300 acres
Assumes the following average floor area ratios:
Low intensity: 31.0%
High intensity: 37.5%
Assumes the following distribution of intensities:
Low intensity: 33.3%
High intensity: 66.7%
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
Table 37
Revenue to DSRSD
Scenario: 600 Acres of Development Over 20 Years in the Annex. Area
SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND COSTS
Capital Revenues and Costs Operating Revenues and Costs
Costs
Capital ----------------------------
Improvement Cumulative Property Station Cumulative
Years Fees Costs Net Net Taxes Operations Personnel Total Net Net
------ ------ ------ ------ ...... ------ ...... ------ ------ ...... ------
1985 -1986 0 85,000 -85,000 -85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1986 -1987 0 0 0 -85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1987 -1988 0 0 0 -85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1988 -1989 0 0 0 -85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1989 -1990 0 0 0 -85,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1990 -1991 98,402 750,017 -651,614 -736,614 86,423 88,638 744,562 833,200 -746,778 -746,778
1991 -1992 98,402 0 98,402 -638,212 180,105 94,311 792,214 886,525 -706,420 -1,453,198
1992 -1993 98,402 0 98,402 -539,810 281,545 100,347 842,915 943,263 -661,717 -2,114,915
1993 -1994 98,402 0 98,402 -441,408 391,276 106,769 896,862 1,003,631 -612,355 -2,727,270
1994 -1995 98,402 0 98,402 -343,006 509,865 113,603 954,261 1,067,864 -557,999 -3,285,269
1995 -1996 98,402 0 98,402 -244,604 637,913 120,873 1,015,334 1,136,207 -498,294 -3,783,563
I 1996 -1997 98,402 0 98,402 -146,202 776,066 128,609 1,080,315 1,208,924 -432,859 -4,216,422
1997 -1998 98,402 0 98,402 -47,800 925,006 136,840 1,149,456 1,286,295 -361,289 -4,577,711
1998 -1999 98,402 0 98,402 50,602 1,085,464 145,598 1,223,021 1,368,618 -283,154 -4,860,865
p 1999 -2000 98,402 0 98,402 149,004 1,258,217 154,916 1,301,294 1,456,210 -197,993 -5,058,858
2000 -2001 98,402 0 98,402 247,407 1,444,092 164,831 1,384,577 1,549,407 -105,316 -5,164,173
2001 -2002 98,402 0 98,402 345,809 1,643,969 175,380 1,473,190 1,648,569 -4,600 -5,168,774
2002 -2003 98,402 0 98,402 444,211 1,858,788 186,604 1,567,474 1,754,078 104,710 -5,064,064
2003 -2004 98,402 0 98,402 542,613 2,089,547 198,547 1,667,792 1,866,339 223,208 -4,840,856
2004 -2005 98,402 0 98,402 641,015 2,337,311 211,254 1,774,531 1,985,785 351,526 -4,489,330
2005 -2006 98,402 0 98,402 739,417 2,603,212 224,774 1,888,101 2,112,875 490,337 -3,998,993
2006 -2007 98,402 0 98,402 837,819 2,888,457 239,159 2,008,939 2,248,099 640,358 -3,358,635
2007 -2008 98,402 0 98,402 936,221 3,194,331 254,466 2,137,511 2,391,977 802,354 -2,556,281
2008 -2009 98,402 0 98,402 1,034,623 3,522,201 270,751 2,274,312 2,545,064 977,137 -1,579,145
2009 -2010 98,402 0 98,402 1,133,025 3,873,523 288,080 2,419,868 2,707,948 1,165,575 -413,570
The cost of a grass truck is assumed to be 85,000 in 1985-1986.
The capital cost of the station is assumed to be 550,000
in 1985-1986. The cost shown reflects inflation.
The operating cost of the station is assumed to be 65,000
per year for the station plus 546,000 per year for personnel
in 1985-1986. The costs shown reflect inflation.
The inflation rate is assumed to average 6.4% per year.
Gruen Gruen +Associates
the capital expenditures in 1998-1999 . By full development ,
projected for 2009-2010 , cumulative capital improvements fees
will have exceeded total capital costs by $1 ,133 ,025 .
Operating Costs and Revenues
The projected balance between operating costs and revenues is
also shown in Table 37 . The table indicates that the costs
of station and personnel in 1990-1991 , when the station is
built, would exceed the revenues from property tax in that
year by $746 ,778 . The balance between operating costs and
revenues would turn positive in 2002-2003 , and the subsequent
positive annual balances would nearly bring cumulative reve-
nues even with cumulative costs by the full development year
of 2009-2010 .
Gruen Gruen + Associates - 75 -