HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2 Semi Public Facilities
,---------
CITY CLERK
File # Dffi[JJ(5]-l2JOJ
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 3,2004
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
3.
RECOMMENDATION'/1.
c~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION:
PA 02-017, Public/Semi-Public Facilities Task Force Report and
Recommendation to Adopt Semi Public Facilities Policy .
Report prepared by: Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner~ f1/
1.
Resolution Approving Semi-Public Facilities Policy with
policy attached as Exhibit A;
Public/Semi-Public Facilities General Plan and Specific
Plan Amendment Study; and
Minutes of all Task Force Meetings.
2.
Receive Staff Presentation and either:
a. Adopt a Resolution approving a Semi-Public Facilities
Policy and direct Staff to Prepare an Amendment to the
General Plan and Specific Plans to include a definition for
Semi-Public Facilities; or
b. Provide Staff with Alternative Direction.
"
None at this time.
In 2002, ~.~)ty.,Council identified Public/Semi-Public Facilities land uses, such as religious institutions,
, .';~'
community centers, and others, as a priority to be addressed in the City's FY2002-2003 Goals and
Objectives, and initiated a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study. City Staff completed an
Amendment Study, which was submitted to City Council on February 18, 2003. After reviewing the
Study, City Council determined that public input was needed on the issue and directed Staff to, advertise
for participants for a Public/Semi-Public Facilities Task Force. On June 3, 2003, the City Council
confirmed the Mayor's appointments to the Task Force, and the Task Force had its first meeting on June
25,2003.
",
The Public/Semi-Public Facilities Task Force consisted of City of Dublin residents, representatives of
community groups, elected and appointed officials, and real estate developers. In addition to the regular
members, Shauna Brown, of Childcare Links, provided information on child care, as an observer to the
Task Force. Observers from the development community and a religious organization also participated.
The Task Force held five (5) meetings, and meeting minutes of the five meetings are included as
Attachment 3. At the last meeting on January 15,2004, the Task Force agreed to recommend the attached
Semi-Public Facilities Policy (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) to City Council.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
Task Force Members
In House Distribution
G:\PA#\2002\02-017 Public Semi Public\CCStaff Report020304b.DOC
ITEM No.ll
-
ten':J
c
ANALYSIS:
At the first few meetings, the Task Force agreed to focus on Semi-Public Facilities, such as religious
institutions, community centers, childcare centers, theatres, and other education and cultural
community services. The Task Force agreed that there would be sufficient sites for Public Facilities
such as BART, City offices, Post Offices, and other public services. The following analysis presents
the components of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy developed by the Task Force and the various
issues that were discussed by the Task Force members. In addition, the report outlines the various
options to be considered by the City Council regarding implementation of the Policy.
Introduction and Purpose Sections
The first task completed by the Task Force was a review ofthe Public/Semi-Public Facilities General Plan
and Specific Plan Amendment Study ("Amendment Study") completed by City Staff. The Amendment
Study is included with this report as Attachment 2. After much discussion and input, the Task Force
members agreed that a policy alternative applicable to General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments (a
combination of Alternatives #2 and #5 in the Amendment Study) would be the best tool for planning for
Semi-Public Facilities. The Task Force members agreed that the City needed to increase the opportunities
for Semi-Public Facilities by increasing the lands designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities in new
development. Using the City's Public Art Policy as a guideline, the Task Force agreed on a voluntary
policy (see Attachment 1) with the following Introduction and Purpose Sections:
Definitions Section
At later meetings, the Task Force reviewed the existing Semi-Public Facilities in the City and Tri-
Valley region. The Task Force members, using projected population growth and information from
the 2000 Census, compiled a list of the types of cultural, educational and other community services
that would be needed by new residents. This list and the basic requirements for adequate
transportation and circulation were summarized into working definitions. These definitions were
added to the Definitions Section of the Policy (see Attachment 1), as follows:
2VO~
Staff is recommending one change to the Definitions Section and has included it in the draft Policy
attached to this Staff Report (Exhibit A to Attachment 1). Staff recommends that the definition of
Transportation and Circulation Systems be modified as follows:
Staffis recommending this change because semi-public uses can exist and thrive in locations that are not
adjacent to public transit. In addition, the City does not have any control on where the local transit agency
will provide transit or if and when they change their routes.
Applicability Section
The Task Force discussed the issues of feasibility and the burden to small projects under the Policy.
The Task Force recommended that the Applicability Section exempt smaller residential projects. As
agreed by the Task Force, the Policy would apply as follows:
Procedure Section
Task Force members recommended a simple procedure for applying the Semi-Public Facilities Policy to
amendment applications. This section specifies that City Staff shall work with applicants, and the City
Council shall have the final approval of the site identified for Semi-Public Facilities, as follows:
3005
Standards Section
Task Force members felt that the Policy needed specific guidelines for implementation by Staff and clarity for
residents and real estate developers. The Task Force spent two meetings discussing the Standards Section of
the Policy. Each of the Policy's Standards is introduced by a paragraph, below.
There was input from real estate developers outlining how the City could encourage development of Semi-
Public Facilities by easing development regulations, such as parking requirements. These different strategies
were included in the first Standard, as follows:
Next, the Task Force weighed the benefit of affordable housing with provision of Semi-Public Facilities. The
Task Force agreed that the intent ofthe Policy was not to discourage development of high-density, affordable
income projects. The Task Force included the second Standard to notify developers and Staff of the flexibility
of the guidelines relative to projects with greater levels of affordability than required under Dublin's
Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, as follows:
Thirdly, Task Force members felt that the benchmark of 1.19 acres ofland per 1,000 residents reviewed
by the Staff Amendment Study was too burdensome and would make many projects infeasible. Task
Force members compromised on a benchmark standard of 1 acre per 1,000 residents that is clearly linked
to the number of housing units involved in the amendment. The third standard is as follows:
The remaining three (3) Standards provide information for Staff, residents and developers regarding the
design and operation of Semi-Public Facilities, as follows:
* Private residential facilities are recreation rooms or facilities in housing developments that are
4~S-
developed for the use of the project residents only.
Location ofSeini-Public Facilities Sites Section
The Task Force recognized that Semi-Public Facilities would be best-suited for locations with the ability to
share parking with other uses, share open space, promote access to and from uses like schools and parks, and
other locations. The Policy includes guidelines for appropriate locations for Semi-Public Facilities, as follows:
Implementation of Task Force Recommendation
If the City Council adopts the attached Resolution approving the draft Policy (Attachmentl), Staffwill
begin working with project Applicants for General Plan Amendment Studies to implement the Policy. In
addition, Staff will bring back amendments to the General Plan and Specific Plans to include a new
definition of Public and Semi-Public Facilities. Currently, there is one definition which defines this type
ofland use, Staffwill separate them into two land uses (Public and Semi-Public) in order to make the
City's planning documents consistent with the new Policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City
environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that
environmental documents be prepared. The project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), according to Section 15306, Class 6, because the project
is part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded.
Any subsequent General Plan or specific plan amendment may require further environmental analysis.
CONCLUSION:
The Public/Semi-Public Facilities Task Force has agreed on a final recommendation to City Council. The
recommendation is in the form of a policy, entitled the Semi-Public Facilities Policy, for City Council
consideration. The Policy reflects the work and input of a diverse cross-section of the Dublin community. If
the City Council adopts the Policy, Staff should be directed to prepare amendments to the City's General Plan
and applicable specific plans for consideration by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive Staff Presentation and either: a) Adopt a Resolution
approving a Semi-Public Facilities Policy and direct Staff to Prepare an Amendment to the General Plan
and Specific Plans to include a definition for Semi-Public Facilities; or, b) Provide Staff with Alternative
Direction.
-
5 tJbO
RESOLUTION NO. - 04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*******
I~~J
APPROVING A SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council identified a need for semi-public facilities in their 2002-2003 FY
Goals and Objectives and directed Staff to work on a General Plan Amendment Study on this issue;
and
WHEREAS, Staff completed the Study in February, 2003 and presented it to the City Council at
their meeting of February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council formed a Public/Semi-Public Task Force to review the Study and
develop a draft Semi-Public Facilities Policy (the draft Policy); and
WHEREAS, the Public/Semi-Public Task Force held five meetings on this issue from June, 2003
through January, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force developed the draft Policy (Exhibit A to this Resolution) and has
submitted it to the City Council for review and approval; and
WHEREAS, the draft Policy has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a staff report was submitted outlining the draft Policy and Task Force
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the Semi-Public Facilities Policy attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and directs
Staff to prepare the necessary amendments to the City's planning documents to create separate
definitions for public and semi-public land uses.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 3rd
day of February 2004, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
:L~ 1.'2- z.\3-lo~
ATTACHMENT 1
G:\P A#\2002\02-017 Public Semi Public\CCRESOLUTlON2-03-04.doc
:;) UbIb'J
CITY OF DUBLIN
SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES POLICY
It is the policy of the City Council ofthe City of Dublin that in reviewing amendments to the land use
map of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City shall also review the
provision of opportunities for cultural, educational and other community services. Semi-Public
Facilities, such as child care centers, religious institutions and others defined below, deliver important
community services. It is the intent of the Policy to increase the opportunities for Semi-Public
Facilities by increasing the locations of lands designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities on the General
Plan land use map. To that effect, all land use amendments may be reviewed for designation of Semi-
Public Facilities lands according to the guidelines below:
A. Purpose of Semi-Public Facilities Policy
The purpose of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy is to:
1. Create a greater sense of community in Dublin neighborhoods and commercial centers;
2. Enrich community identity and foster a sense of civic pride;
3. Recognize and anticipate the different needs of Dublin residents who represent diverse ages,
interests, national backgrounds, and cultural, social and creative pursuits;
4. Leave future generations a cultural legacy which can change and develop as the City grows and
changes; and
5. Increase public access to cultural, educational and community services, citywide.
B. Definitions
1. Semi-Public Facilities. Semi-Public Facilities will include uses such as child care centers,
youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious institutions, ,
clubhouses, community centers, community theatres, hospitals, and other facilities that provide
cultural, educational, or other community services. A semi-public facility may be used for more
than one semi-public use. Semi-Public Facilities are generally part ofthe Public/Semi-Public
Facilities land use category.
2. Transportation and Circulation Systems. Adequate transportation and circulation systems
criteria is defined as a site located on a class 1 collector street with two points of access.
C. Applicabilitv
This Policy shall be applicable to all General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment applications. This
Policy shall apply to residential amendments involving 150 or more Single-Family Density housing
units and/or 250 or more Medium Density or greater density housing units, or increments and
combinations thereof.
EXHIBIT A
"""'-";t;;i~~'''';;'.''-d-:',>",,,, "
3 UO<t.1
Final Task Force Recommendation
D. Procedure
City Staff shall work with project applicants to meet the goals and intent ofthe Semi-Public Facility
Policy according to the following procedure:
1. The location(s) of the Semi-Public Facility site(s) as part of a Public/Semi-Public Facility land
use category will be determined as a part ofthe amendment project review by the City.
2. Identification of Semi-Public Facilities sites will begin at the early stages of the amendment
application.
3. The City Council shall have final approval ofthe Public/Semi-Public Facility site identified for
Semi-Public Facility land uses.
E. Standards
1. When reviewing the sufficiency of the sites proposed as part of an amendment application
pursuant to the Semi-Public Facility Policy, the City will consider the following future
modifications of design requirements for Semi-Public Facility projects: parking reductions;
design modifications; use of nearby public facilities to meet over-flow parking demand;
partnering of Semi-Public Facilities with City facilities where feasible; and transfer of Semi-
Public Facility land use sites to other locations in the City of Dublin that meet the location
criteria described below.
2. When reviewing the sufficiency of sites proposed as a part of an amendment application
pursuant to the Semi-Public Facility Policy, the City will consider modification of these
standards for, or exempt, projects that provide affordable housing in excess ofthe City of
Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
3. New residential development subject to this Policy shall strive to provide sites for Semi-Public
Facilities land uses at a rate ofl acre (net) per 1,000 residents. In practice, General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment applications shall strive to provide .5 acres of land designated for
Public/Semi-Public Facilities per 150 units of Single-Family Density (.9 - 6.0 units per acre)
and/or .5 acres ofland designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities per 250 units of Medium
Density or greater density (6.1 or more units per acre), or increments and combinations thereof.
4. Private residential facilities* to be used to satisfy this Policy may not be restricted to project
residents and employees.
5. Future facilities will have an identifying architectural style that is attractive and that is
recognizable from the public right-of-way.
6. Sites for future Semi-Public Facilities will be reviewed per the location guidelines below.
* Private residential facilities are recreation rooms or facilities in housing developments that are
developed for the use of the project residents only.
F. Location of Semi-Public Facility Sites
In considering the potential location of Semi-Public Facilities, the City Council will consider
locations in all parts of the City. In addition, it is encouraged that Semi-Public Facilities be located
at sites:
1. with adequate transportation and circulation systems that have the least conflict with residential
uses;
2. where shared parking might occur between complementary uses;
3. with open space and landscaping amenities;
4. with proximity to City parks; and
5. with proximity to schools.
2
Pub lic/Seroj,.PtiblicFacUities
General Plan and Specific plan AmendJ:tl~QtStlldy
\~.
City of Dublin Community Development Department
PA 02-017, January 7,2003
..ATTACHMENT ~
/
,i,/
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
50O'2/J
Page 1
II. Current Policies for Parks, Schools and Other Community Facilities Page 2
III. Implementation of Current Policies for Community Facilities
IV. Status of Community Facilities under Current Policies
V. Status Findings
VI. Status Summary
VII. Policy Alternatives
VIII. Conclusion
Technical Appendices
1. Semi-Public Facility Inventory
2. Dublin Unified School District Facility Needs
3. Annual Review of Development Agreements
4. Alternatives Table
5. Places of Assembly Facility Types
Page 4
Page 5
Page 11
Page 14
Page 14
Page 15
~ 002,1
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study
January 7, 2003
1. Introduction:
On May 21, 2002, City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study to evaluate the sufficiency of Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PSPF) land uses and, if
appropriate, to increase the areas available for PSPF in new development.
This Study reviews City policy provisions for Community Facilities in Dublin. The report also
identifies the particular needs of Semi-Public Facilities.
In Dublin, Community Facilities are identified as Parks, Schools and Public/Semi-Public Facilities.
Community Facilities, as organized in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and in the Primary
Planning Area (PPA), can be outlined as shown in Table 0.1 below:
Table 0.1, Organization of Community Facilities
I
V
lParks/Recreatio~
Community Facilities
I
V
~ublic/Semi-Public Facilities (EDSP)I
I I
V V
ISchools I !Public/Semi-Public Facilities I
I I
V V
~ublic I ISemi-Publicl
I
V
!Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PP A)I
I I
V V
~ublic I ISemi-Publi~
To most readers ofthis Study, Parks and Schools are readily identified. However, Public/Semi~Public
Facilities are more generally defined. Public/Semi-Public Facilities can include public uses such as
libraries, City office buildings, public agency facilities, post offices, fire stations, BART, public
utilities, and semi-public uses such as churches, theatres, community centers, hospitals, and other non-
governmental, non-commercial uses. Semi-public uses share the following characteristics:
1. local base .
2. community-serving activities
3. not-for-profit purpose
4. open to the public
This Study reviews current General Plan and Specific Plan goals and policies, and reports on the
adequacy of Community Facilities policies and, more specifically, the sufficiency ofPSPF land uses
within the City. In conclusion, the Study discusses alternatives for amending the General Plan and
Specific Plan to improve the City's ability to provide sites for PSPF.
1 OO~1
II. Current Policies for Parks, Schools and Others Community Facilities:
City of Dublin General Plan
First adopted in 1985, the General Plan is a blue print for development of the City and outlines the
location, size and types of development that is to occur within the City. Included within this outline is
the Community Facilities land use designation. Community Facilities include: Public/Semi-Public
Facilities, which include government buildings, religious institutions and schools; and
ParksIRecreation facilities. The General Plan provides policies for continued development and
expansion of different types of Community Facilities 1. The General Plan provided specific policies for
the Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area, which were generally divided by
Dougherty Road. .
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
In 1994, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGP A). The amendment
was adopted concurrently with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The amendment changed the General
Plan to make both documents consistent with each other. It added new land use classifications and
updated Dublin's land use map. The amendment did not add specific policies for Community
Facilities. However, the Introduction of the amendment, Section 1.4, summarized the City's goal for
growth into the areas to the east:
"(T)he Eastern Extended Planning Area represents a unique opportunity and challenge to plan a
distinctive, well-balanced community that complements the existing city. The extension of Dublin
Boulevard will be the physical link that connects the eastern planning area with the rest of Dublin,
but the variety of development projected for eastern Dublin is seen as an opportunity to enhance
the residential, employment, retail, recreation, and cultural character ofthe entire city."
Lastly, while maintaining separate policies for the areas identified as the Primary Planning Area and
the Eastern Extended Planning Area in the General Plan, the amendment added new land use
classifications for the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The definition for Public/Semi-Public Facilities
was as follows: .
PubliC/Semi-Public (Maximum .50 Floor Area Ratio). This designation identifies areas where
governmental or institutional type uses are anticipated. Such uses include public buildings such as
schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post
offices; fire stations; and utilities. Semi-public uses such as churches, theatres, community centers,
and hospitals are also permitted in this designation. Parks are not included under this designation.
The designation generally applies to parcels of land owned by a public entity or government
agency.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) laid out policies for Community Facilities for the Eastern
Extended Planning Area in finer detail than the General Plan. The Specific Plan addressed Parks,
I The General Plan provisions for Parks are located in the Land Use and Circulation: Parks and Open Space Section, 3.0.
General Plan provisions for Schools and Utilities are located in the Land Use and Circulation Section: Schools, Public
Lands and Utilities Element, 4.0. Provisions for emergency preparedness and fire are established in Environmental
Resources Management Section: Seismic Safety and Safety Element. There are three provisions for semi~public facilities:
1) 1.8 General Plan Map description states that requests for approval of churches or other semi-public facilities typically
appropriate to the adjoining uses are not to be considered inconsistent with the General Plan; Table 1.1 identifies specific
semi-public facilities; and the Noise Element, 9.0, establishes noise levels appropriate for schools and churches.
2
~ c5b~1
Schools and Public/Semi-Public Facilities under both the Land Use Element, 4.0, and the Community
Services and Facilities Element, 8.0.
Parks
The stated goal for recreation in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area was "to develop a
comprehensive, integrated park and recreational open space system designed to meet the diverse needs
of the City of Dublin." There are polices to direct development of parks and recreation2 and there are
action program points which clarify and focus action under the policies3. The EDSP designated 241.5
acres ofland as Parks.
Schools
The goal in the Specific Plan for Schools was "to provide school facilities adequate to meet the
community's need for quality education." There are policies to direct development of School sites4 and
there are action program points which clarify and focus action under the policies5.
In contrast to the General Plan's list of Public/Semi-Public Facilities which included 167.95 acres of
public and private schools6, the Land Use classification in the Specific Plan separated Schools from the
Public/Semi-Public Facilities designation7. The EDSP, as amended, designated 132.1 acres8 of
Schools. fu addition, the Schools classification in the EDSP includes private schools in the Land Use
Chapter but excludes them in the Summary Chapter.
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
There are goals, policies and action programs for the remaining services and facilities studied in the
Specific Plan9. There are provisions for public uses, such as police stations, fire stations, utilities, post
offices, and a library. The Specific Plan, as amended, designated 97.8 acres ofland for Public/Semi-
Public Facilities. Although there are no written goals, policies or action programs for semi-public uses,
the Summary for Community Services and Facilities, Section 3.7, stated the intent of the Specific Plan
as follows:
"Planning for community services is informed by three general objectives: 1) the provision of
community services will proceed concurrently with development; 2) development will not lead to
an overburdening of existing services or municipal finances; and 3) current service standards will
be maintained or improved."
:1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policies 4-28, 4-29 and 4-30, for Section 4.7 Recreation.
3 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program: Recreation, Program 4M, 4N, 40, and 4P.
4 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policies 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, for Section 8.1 Schools.
5 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Action Program: Schools, Program 8A, 8B, and 8C.
6 An analysis of Schools is included in this report as Tables 0.2 and 0.2A. Staff inventoried a total of 170.31 acres of public
and private school in the Primary Planning Area, which includes 2.36 acres of pre-schools not identified in the General
Plan.
7 Schools are a Public/Semi-Public Facility in the General Plan.
8 Later amendments to EDSP include: 11.8 acres of School designated land was removed from Dublin Ranch Area C with
approval ofPD 96-039; 21.4 acres ofland were removed from Greenbriar project with approval ofPD 98-062 and PD 97-
040; 4.4 acres were added to Dublin Ranch Area E with approval ofPD 96~o"39; and 5 acres were added to General Plan
Eastern Extended Planning Area in Eastern Dublin Property Owners (ED PO) area.
9 Community Services and Facilities Element, Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5
,.,
:>
q L5b '61
III. Implementation of Current Policies for Community Facilities:
Parks
General Plan and Specific Plan goals for Parks are implemented through facilitation of the City's Parks
and Community Services Department, which maintains park facilities and administers the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the locations of existing and new
park facilities. Parks are developed through dedications of land, pursuant to the Quimby Act,
Government Code section 66477, and through a Public Facility Fee exacted from new development.
Schools
General Plan and Specific Plan goals for Schools are implemented through cooperation with the
Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). The General Plan Land Use Map designates the locations of
existing and new school sites. Schools are maintained and expanded through a combination of funds
from property tax, sales tax, bonds and State funds and school expansion is funded through School
Impact Fees exacted from new development, pursuant to the Sterling Act, as amended, Government
Code 65995.
Private schools are allowed in any district with either Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development
reView processes.
Public/Semi Public Facilities
Implementation of General Plan and Specific Plan goals for Public/Semi Public Facilities is
accomplished in several ways. There are different means of implementation for public facilities
compared to semi-public facilities,
Public Facilities
The General Plan Land Use Map designated the locations of existing public facilities and new public
facilities, under the Public/Semi-Public Facility designation. Public Facilities, such as the Civic Center,
are maintained through monies from the General Fund and other government funds. Establishment
and expansion of City of Dublin public facilities necessary to serve new development is funded
through a combination of monies including the Public Facilities Fee exacted from new development.
Public Facilities are allowed in any land use designation and government agencies are generally not
subject to zoning regulations and procedures.
Within the EDSP area, the Land Use Map designates 97.8 acres ofland as Public/Semi-Public
Facilities. At the same time, the map and Specific Plan attribute 90.8 acres of that total to the Planning
Subarea titled "County Center." The intent of the County Center is to accommodate a variety of public,
government-related useslO to serve all of Alameda County, such as the Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center. The site ofthe remaining 7 acres of Public/Semi-Public Facilities is identified for public uses
and semi-public uses 11.
Semi-Public Facilities
The General Plan Land Use Map designates the location of specific existing semi-public facilities. The
intended location of new semi-public facilities is not shown on the land use map. The majority of
1
10 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Section 4.9.9 County Center Land Use Concept
lIThe EIR for the Specific Plan suggests this site for a library and a post office. However, the Specific Plan describes the
intent of the "Town Center - Commercial" subarea as providing a variety of community services (Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, Section 4.9.2)
4
} 0 00'81
Public/Semi-Public Facility land is intended for public uses. As explained in the Public Facilities
section above, the land specifically identified for semi-public uses, 7 acres designated Public/Semi-
Public Facilities, is also intended for public uses. In addition, Semi-Public Facilities are subject to
zoning controls in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan12. Semi-Public Facilities are
not maintained by government agencies.
IV. Status of Community 'Facilities under Current Policies:
Parks
All new development is reviewed in accordance with the goals and policies ofthe Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. The City continues to review and update the ParkS and Recreation Master
Plan13.
Schools
The Dublin Unified School District recently issued a School Facility Needs Analysis, dated August
2002, which found that earlier school attendance projections used in the EDSP/GP Awere
overestimated 1 4. The Facility Needs Analysis is attached as Appendix 2. According to the School
District's analysis, there may be lands designated as School that are unnecessary to the School District
to meet demand for new facilities. The excess land totals 81.6 acres in the EDSP/GPA area.
This Study reviewed the total land used for the existing public and private schools in the Primary
Planning Area and in the EDSP/GPA Area. Valley Christian Center and Quarry Lane School are the
largest private schools in the CitylS. Existing public and private schools, including pre-schools, in the
Primary Planning Area total 170.31 acres. Existing Public and Private Schools in the EDSP tota125.07
acres. This analysis is included in Tables 0.2 and 0.3, below.
12 A semi-public use would be allowed in all districts in the Primary Planning Area with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
issued by the Dublin Planning Commission. A semi-public use would be allowed in the EDSP/GP A area as a Stage 1
Planned Development adopted by City CounciL In addition, a semi-public use would be allowed with a CUP issued by the
Dublin Planning Commission within an established Planned Development area.
13 City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, July 1994 .
14 On October 9,2002, the Dublin Unified School District Board of Trustees approved the current Facility Needs Analysis.
15 Private Schools, such as St. Raymond's, that are a component ofa larger religious Assembly Use, are included in the
analysis of Places of Assembly in Dublin.
5
11 ~f61
Table 0.2, Primary Planning Area Schools
Type Example Number Average Combined
Acrea2e Acreae;e
Public Elementary Nielson 5 11.02 55.08
Dublin
Murray
Frederiksen
School District
.
Middle Wells/ Valley 1 18.05 18.05
Continuation
High Dublin High 1 44.65 44.65
School
Sub-Total 117.78
Private Preschooll6 Montessori Plus 5 .47 2.36
Little Kids Learning
Center
Kindercare
Tots University
My Spaceto Grow
Special Easter Seals - - -
Needs Kaleidoscopel7
All Grades Valley Christian 1 50.17 50.17
Center
Sub-Total 52.53
Total Public and Private 170.31
Table 0.3, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/GP A Schools
Type Example Number Average Combined
Acrea2e Acreage
Public Elementary I Dougherty 1 10 10
Sub- Total 10
Private All Grades puarry Lane 1 15.07 15.07
Sub-Total 15.07
Total Public and Private 25.07
16 Does not include Fountainhead Montessori, at 6901 York Dr., which leases space in the former Cronin School from
DUSD for 115 students because this facility is included in the inventory of public schools under the WellslValley
Continuation entry.
17 Easter Seals Kaleidoscope leases space from DUSD at the 5.09 acre School District site, included in the inventory of
public schools.
6
/ ';;A ov 'E 1
Existin2 Facilities and New Facilities
The Dublin Unified School District manages existing School resources and determines the need.for
new facilities generated by residential development.
Public/Semi- Public Facilities
This Study reviewed the total land used for Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the Primary Planning Area
and land designated Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the EDSP area. The total land currently developed
with Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the Primary Planning Area is approximately 71 acres and the land
designated in the EDSP area is 97.8 acres. The charts titled Table 1 and Table 2, describe the
inventory.
Table 1, Primary Planning Area Public/Semi-Public Facilities without Schools18
Type Example Number Average Combined
Acrea2e Acrea~e
Government Civic Center, DSRSD, Post 3 5.65 .16.95
Services Office
Fire Station 7494 Donohue 1 .34 .34
Meeting Hall Local Union 595 IBEW 119 1 1
Library 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. 1 2.0 2.0
.
Religious vanous 920 2.82 25.38
Institution
BART vanous 2 12.38 24.75
Live Theatre Dublin Theatre Co. 1 .33 .33
Hospital n/a
Total 70.75
Table2, EDSP/GPA Public/Semi-Public Facilities Land
Area Public-Semi-Public Facility Acreage
Land Use Map
Dublin Ranch Area F 3.9
Dublin Ranch Area G 3.1
Alameda County Center 90.8
Remaining EDSP/GP A Planning Area 0
Total 97.8
18 Schools are excluded from the inventory because they are not included in the PSPF category in the EDSP.
19 Meeting halls do not include a possible E Clampus Vitus meeting hall because it is a private club, not open to the public.
It does not include organizations that meet in restaurants, such as the Lions Club.
20 This number of religious institutions does not include one church that is a temporary use within a commercial zone, one
church that meets in the City's community park, or several churches which may be operating in Dublin without City
permits. In addition, this classification does not include Valley Christian Center because VCC is included in the discussion
of private schools. . .
7
IS UO~I
Semi...Public Facilities
Semi-Public Facilities are facilities which are not funded or controlled by government agencies. In
Table l~ four types of facilities in the Primary Planning Area are strictly semi-public. They are Meeting
Hall, Religious Institution, Live Theatre and Hospital. When Public Facilities are removed from,the
inventory, the inventory of Semi-Public Facilities in the Primary Planning Area totals 26.71 acres. The
Semi-Public Facilities inventory is shown in Table 3. There are two existing Semi-Public Facilities in
the Eastern Extended Planning Area as shown in Table 4.
Table 3, Primary Planning Area Semi-Public Facilities
Type Example Number Average Combined Average Combined
Acreage Acreage Square Square
Foota2e Footage
Meeting Local Union 595 1 1 1 16,218 16,218
HaHl7 IBEW
Religious various 921 2.82 25.38 21,736.66 195,630
Institution
Live Theatre Dublin Theatre 1 .33 .33 2,520 2,520
Co.
Hospital n/a - - - - -
Total 11 2.428 26.71 19,488 214,368
Table 4, EDSP/GPA Area Semi-Public Facilities
Type Example Number Average Combined Average Combined
Acreage Acreage Square Square
Foota2e Foota2e
Animal Tri-Valley SPCA 1 2.37 2.37 22,400 22,40022
Shelter
Community AutoNation 1 .11 .1123 864 864
Room
Total 2 1.24 2.48 11,632 23,264
Assembly lJse
Except for the Hospital use and the Animal Shelter, the Semi-Public Facilities in the chart above can
be categorized as Places of Assembly24. Assembly uses are characterized by large interior spaces that
allow large and medium-size groups to assemble together for community purposes. Places of
21 This inventory does not include Valley Christian Center (VCC). VCC is included in the analysis of schools. The detailed
inventory of Semi-Public Facilities is included as Appendix 1.
21 Tri- Valley SPCA leases land from Alameda County for $1 per year and may provide some services for the County's
animal shelter.
23 As part of the AutoNation complex, the community room totals 864 square feet, plus 3,060 for 17 parking spaces, and
918.square feet for aisles, driveways, and other improvements.
24 Hospitals are currently not established in the City.
8
\~V081
Assembly can be studied together because they require similar siting criteria and have similar
environmental impacts, as follows.
Assembly Criteria and Impacts .
Places of Assembly in the Primary Planning Area, west of Dougherty Road, have the following
characteristics:
1. Places of Assembly require average parcel sizes in the range of .33 to 2.82 acres each and a
floor area of between 2,520 and 21,737 square feet each to provide appropriate land for various
use types. Average parcel sizes are described in the Places of Assembly Table, included as
Attachment 1.
2. Existing Places of Assembly are located near, or as a part of, residential development.
3. Places of Assembly can be associated with noise, nighttime illumination, heavy vehicle traffic
and parking, and wide-ranging hours of operation.
4. Project design must provide adequate traffic and circulation systems to support large
assemblies of people. Places of Assembly sites must be on or near major arterials and
collectors. Traffic systems must minimize conflict with residential neighborhoods.
5. Existing Places of Assembly have sites that are relatively flat without excessive topographic
and/or enviroinnental constraints. Places of Assembly need large areas for interior meeting
space and for parking and traffic and circulation constraints.
Existin1! Facilities
As shown in the Table 5 below, the Study divided the total amount of land and gross floor area of
existing Semi-Public Facilities by the current population estimate as of January 1, 2002, minus group
quarters and minus the population of the EDSP/GPA area. The pro rata share is 1.19 acres of land per
1,000 residents and 9,525 square feet of floor area per 1,000 residents. The ratio ofland available to a
Semi-Public Facility in the EDSP/GP A area is 1.43 acres ofland per 1,000 residents, for the 5,736
current residents.
Area Existing Places of Population Ratio Acreage /
Assembly Land / Space Floor Area
Primary Planning Area I 26.71 acres 22,506 Dublin 1.19 acres per 1,000
residents as of residents
(Area West of January 1,200225
Dougherty Road) 214,368 square feet 9,525 square feet per
1 ,000 residents
EDSP/GP A Area 8.2426 acres 5,736 Dublin 1.43 acres per 1,000
(Area East of Dougherty residents as of
Road) 23,264 square feet. January 1, 2002 i 4,056 square feet per
i 1,000
Table 5, Per Capita Ratio for Semi-Public Facilities
EXISTING
25 Department of Finance, Official State Estimates as of January L 2002: City/County Population and Housing Estimates,
Excluding Group Quarters and City Estimate for Population of EDSP lOP A Area, as of January 1, 2002
26 This number represents the 7 acres of PSPF designated land and the 1.24 acres of land used by the SPCA and the
AutoNation Community Room.
9
\~ 0':tf1
What is the Correct Standard/or Dublin?
The current inventory of semi-public uses in Dublin suggests that 1,000 residents require 1.19 acres of
land for religious institutions, meeting halls, and theatres. However, Staff is not aware of a regional or
national standard for these uses27. Staff found one city that has. established a policy for semi-public
uses. The City ofChula Vista requires 1.39 acres ofland per 1,000 residents in planned development
communities for "Community Purpose Facilities" in addition to park and open space dedication. These
facilities are defined as the following:
"Community Purpose Facility" means a structure or site for childcare, certain nonprofit
assembly or recreation purposes, as well as ancillary uses such as a parking lot, within a
planned community. Typical uses include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and other similar
organizations; social and human services such as Alcoholics Anonymous, services for
homeless, services for military personnel during the holidays, senior or childcare. and
recreation, and worship, spiritual growth and development and teaching of traditional
family values; and ~ecreational ball fields.28 .
The amount ofland that should be reserved for semi-public uses for Dublin is a standard that
can only be determined by the community. The standard is based on the goals, values, and
vision for the area that is under development, and not a determined national or state-accepted
average. The standard may be mor~ or less than 1.19 acres per 1,000 residents, based on the
conditions and issues that must be balanced with the provision of semi-public services. Factors
include the current regulatory and market conditions that shape development. These conditions
are described in the Analysis of Differences, in Section VI. The remainder of the Study uses
1.19 acres per 1,000 residents as a starting point for a discussion of the issues.
New Facilities at Build Out
The current population projection for the EDSP/GPA is 34,018 residents. If the standard of 1.19 acres
per 1,000 residents, shown above, was applied to future development, a population of this size would
require 40.48 acres ofland, 324,021 square feet of floor area, or a combination ofland and floor area
dedicated to Places of Assembly. There are currently 8.24 acres of land appropriate for semi-public
uses in the EDSP/GP A. Under the expected population growth, the Study estimates that in addition to
the 8.24 acres provided, the City would need 32.24 acres ofland, 300,757 square feet of floor area, or a
combination of both.
The projected population for the Primary Planning Area is 25,849 residents. This area would ultimately
need land and facility space of30.76 acres and 246,212 square feet (or an additional 4.05 acres ofland
and 31,844 square feet of floor area). This analysis is described in the chart, titled Table 6.
27 City Staff contacted U.C. Berkeley, the University of Virginia, Calthorpe and Associates, The Polis Center, The Hartford
Institute and other organizations that study the needs of communities and land use policy. None of the organizations
questioned for the Study were aware of a per capita standard for semi-public uses.
28 Section 19.04.055 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. In Chula Vista, Community Purpose Facility (CPF) does not
include City Parks. Recreation ball fields must be for non-profit organizations and cannot be more then 25% of the total
land dedicated for CPF, section 19.48.025.
10
\LR 00 ~1
Area Existing Population Per Capita Ratio Total Total
Places of Projections Acreage / Floor Projected Projected
Assembly Area Acreage Floor
Land / Space Area
Primary 26.71 acres 25,84929 1.19 acres per 1,000 30.76 acres 246,212
Planning Area Dublin residents square feet
(West of 214,368 square Residents
Dougherty) feet 9,525 square feet per
1,000 residents
EDSP/GPA 8.24 acres30 3401831 1.19 acres per 1,000 40.48 acres 324,021
,
Area Dublin residents square feet
23,264 square Residents
(East of feet 9,525 square feet per
Dougherty) 1,000 residents
Table 6, Projected Demand for Places of Assembly
BUILD OUT
v. Status Findings:
Parks
The City has the Park and Recreation Master Plan, adopted in 1994, that addresses park facilities. The
Master Plan identified existing Park resources and established policies to meet the demand related to
development, including facility financing and operating methods. The Master Plan uses a standard that
was deveioped from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRP A). The existing park acreages
and the designated Park sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are under review as part ofthe update
of the Master Plan, which will be completed by early 2003.
Schools
As evaluated by the Dublin Unified School District in the School Facility Needs Analysis, dated
August 2002, there is currently no deficit of school sites, and there may be excess school sites totaling
81.6 acres in the EDSP/GP A area. DUSD anticipates a total ofthree elementary schools and one .
middle school to serve the EDSP area. Dusb analysis does not include the demand for Private
Schools or pre-s.chools in the EDSP. Existing Private Schools in the Primary Planning Area total 52.53
acres. Existing Private Schools in the EDSP total 15.07 acres. There could be a difference between the
Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area in the City's ability to provide
appropriate sites for independent, private schools.
Public Facilities
Currently, there is no deficit in land available for public uses in either the Primary Planning Area or the
EDSP/GP A Area. There are 90.8 acres of land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan that are intended for public, government-related land uses. There are
approximately 44 acresofland currently used by public uses in the Primary Planning Area. Public
29 City of Dublin Community Development Department
30 Includes 7 acres of land designated PSPF outside the County Center subarea and the 1.24 acres of land used by the SPCA
and the AutoNation Community Room. Within the EDSP/GP A all land designated Public/Semi-Public Facility have
established provisions for public facilities. Semi-public uses would compete with public uses for development at these sites.
31 City of Dublin Community Development Department
11
/fOO <61
Facilities are allowed in any land use designation and government agencies are not subject to some
zoning regulations and procedures.
Semi-Public Facilities
There is a significant difference in the land available for Semi-Public Facilities, in general, and Places
of Assembly, in particular, in the EDSP area as compared to the PP A. There is a greater level of
service for Meeting Halls, Live Theatres and Religious Institutions in the Primary Planning Area than
the City may be able to provide under current conditions in the EDSP Area.
At build out, there could be a difference of 32.24 acres ofland and 300,757 square feet of floor area in
the EDSP area compared with the current level of service in the Primary Planning Area, using a
standard of 1.19 acres per 1,000 residents.
At build out, there could be a demand for additional 4.05 acres ofland or 31,844 square feet of floor
area in the Primary Planning Area. This demand could be satisfied with-expansion of floor area of
existing facilities32. .
There is a greater level of service for Meeting Halls, Live Theatres and Religious Institutions in the
Primary Planning Area than may be able to be provided under current conditions in the EDSP Area.
The reasons for the difference are discussed below.
Analvsis of Differences
There are two primary reasons why there are differences in the City's ability to provide sites for Semi-
Public Facilities in the area west of Dougherty Road as comparedto the area east of Dougherty: 1) City
Policy and 2) Market Forces.
City Policy
The Study identified several policies that impact the successful siting of new facilities:
. The General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan make few provisions for Semi-Public
Facilities. Chapter 8.0 of the EDSP/GPA, titled Community Services and Facilities, contains
descriptions and action programs for public utilities, postal service and library, including the
suggestion that a post office and library be located in the Town Center of Dublin RanchAreas
F and G. However, there are no provisions for religious institutions, performing arts theatres,
meeting halls or other Places of Assembly in this chapter. Applicants and City Staff look to
these provisions when reviewing an application for consistency with the EDSP/GP A. In
addition, the definition of Public/Semi-Public Facilities has different meanings, one in the
General Plan and another in the EDSP. .
. General Plan Land Use Map designations influence the market value by regulating the type of
development that is allowed an~ the expected yield to a developer or property owner. Land.
designated residential or commercial is too expensive for lease or purchase by Semi-Public
Facilities.
32 The eleven existing facilities would need to expand their facilities by 2,895 square feet, .37 acres, or a combination of the
two, on average.
12
10~~1
. Land is developed in the EDSP area with Planned Development Zoning. Unless the Semi-
Public Facility is a component ofthe Planned Developmentproject, the subsequent subdivision
design, architecture and traffic system are not necessarily appropriate for a semi-public use.
. The EDSP separated the Public Semi-Public Facilities category into two distinct land uses:
Schools and Public/Semi-Public Facilities. Although there is a possible excess of School land,
an EDSP and General Plan amendment would be required to use School land for other
Public/Semi-Public Facilities.
Market Forces--
Market forces create challenges to providing locations for Semi-Public Facilities in the following
ways:
. There is a scarcity of available land in the Primary Planning Area, west of Dougherty Road.
The area has established land uses and is n.earing build out. The high demand for land and the
existing scarcity of vacant land significantly increases the value ofland.
. In the EDSP Area, land with residential land use designations sells for approximately $20 to
$40 per square foot, and land with commercial land use designations sells for approximately
$15 to $30 a square foot. Land designated for commercial and residential land use may be too
expensive for purchase or lease by semi-public facility organizations.
. Although a Semi-Public Facility is allowed in most PD districts with a Conditional Use Permit,
residential development in the EDSP Area has produced dense residential neighborhoods with
small lot sizes that are not appropriate locations for Semi-Public Facilities.
. As a result of changes in legislation since the Primary Planning Area was developed, non-
developed areas of the City within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have more stringent
environmental laws that restrict in many instances the development yield of land. This has a
market effect on the ability of potential semi-public uses to obtain sites. Organizations desiring
to establish a Semi-Public Facility cannot afford to pay as much for land with these
environmental restrictions as commercial and residential uses.
13
,q 6b~f
VI. Status Summary:
This Study identifies a difference between the areas west of Dougherty Road and east of Dougherty
Road in the City's ability to provide appropriate sites for Semi-Public Facilities to serve the growing
residenti;:tl population. The Study considers how to establish a standard for the ratio of Semi-Public
Facilities to residents. No standard exists nationally or regionally and Staff is aware of only one city
that has a standard for Semi-Public Facilities. The standard for Dublin would be individual to Dublin
based on Dublin's goals, values, and vision.
The Study recognizes that the undeveloped portions ofthe City of Dublin, mainly in the EDSP area,
are under very different market and policy conditions than the conditions under which the Primary
Planning Area developed and grew in population.
The Study examined the policy framework for the provision of semi-public services to residents. There
are three general objectives in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment to guide the provision of
Public/Semi-Public Facilities, which are:
1) the provision of community services will proceed concurrently with development;
2) development will not lead to an overburdening of existing services or municipal finances;
3) current service standards will be maintained or improved.
Today, Dublin has a distinct, family-oriented character. The EDSP area represents a unique
opportunity and challenge to plan a distinctive, well-balanced community that complements the
existing City. To do so, the City and the development community can work together to address the
issue of appropriate sites for Semi-Public Facilities. Staff reviewed several alternatives to accomplish
this goal, c1iscussed below.
VII. Policy Alternatives:
Based on existing facilities, their characteristics and the potential constraints to development of Semi-
Public Facilities, including Places of Assembly, this study has prepared different options for amending
the EDSP and General Plan. These different options or alternatives are listed below and described in
detail on the attached Alternatives Table, included as Appendix 4.
Staff considered the following amendments or combination of amendments to the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
1. No Change Alternative. This alternative would result in no changes to the EDSP and General
Plan at this point in time.
2. Add Places of Assembly as a Land Use Category. This alternative would result in amending
the EDSP and General Plan to define Places of Assembly within Public/Semi-Public Facilities
designation and describe the qualities of Places of Assembly uses and facilities. These could
include parcel sizes, use types, appropriate locations, and other features. This alternative would
include adding a policy to encourage Places of Assembly in buffer areas between residential
and commercial districts, in commercial districts and in mixed-use districts. The policy c.ould
function in a manner similar to th~City's public art policy. A list of proposed Places of
Assembly types is included as Attachment 5. .
14
;)0 0081
3. Re-Designate School Sites. The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) has indicated that
there may be an excess of 81.6 acres of School land in the EDSP/GP A area based on current
student projections. This alternative would amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to provide policies so that a School site has underlying Public/Semi-Public
Facilities land use, ifit is determined to be unnecessary for use by DUSD. This alternative
would also clarify the intent of the Schools classification regarding private schools.
4. City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would increase the acreage of
land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities at appropriate locations in the EDSP/GP A
with a City-initiated General Plan Amendment. Some lands are currently subject to
developmentagreements33. A map of properties under existing and expired development
agreements is included with Appendix 3. With City Council direction, City Staff would
convene a task force to determine the appropriate amount of land needed for PSPF to serve new
development, the best locations for the facilities, and the equitable share ofPSPF designated
land among the involved property owners. City Staff would facilitate meetings with intereste4
members of the public and property owners. City Staffwould supervise the appropriate level of
environmental review.
5. Developer-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. This alternative would establish a policy to
provide for increased acreage designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities use whenever a
developer-initiated General Plan Amendment application is submitted to the City. Acreage
would be alt'otted by the property owner's percentage share of the projected population growth.
,
VIII. Conclusion:
This Study identifies a difference in the City's ability to satisfy the demand that may be created with
the growth of residential population in the EDSP/GP A area, compared to the current ratio of facilities
to residents in the Primary Planning Area. The Study recommends that Council review alternatives to
City policy to anticipate the needs of the new residents in the EDSP area.
33 Requirements of preexisting development agreements, for example the Master Development Agreement with the Lin
Family for Dublin Ranch, specifically "lock in" the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations as
of the date of the development agreement and until the agreement terminates. The Master Development Agreement does
not preclude the City Council from amending the EDSP IGP A. However, if the ED SP IGP A were amended to redesignate
land within Dublin Ranch for use as a Place of Assembly, the amendment would not apply during the Master Development
Agreement's term. Nonetheless, ifthe City Council chose to amend the EDSP/GP A, it would effectively provide the
developer with two choices during the term of the development agreement: (a) develop in accordance with the "locked in"
general and specific plan land use designations or (b) propose development consistent with the amended land use
designations. After the expiration of the development agreement, development would have to be consistent with the
amended land use designations. Land that is currently under Development Agreements is listed and mapped in Appendix 3.
15
Oll 0c>81
Public/Semi-Public Facilities
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, P A 02-017
January 7, 2003
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
nventory
i-Public Facility
Sem
Appendix 1
Technical
e ~ .
111
111 ...-
Z 0
III 0 ~
~ LL
III III 0)
Q) III '0 f:! c
C Ql ...- III
... Ql 111 111 :;:
'w '0 f:! Ql Co f:! :::l ...
~ ~ Ui ~ c~ ~ y; ~
75
75
16,218
-
16,218
1
1
50-300
Hall/Offices
6250 Villa
Local Union 595 IBEW
AVERAGE
50
-
50
2,520
-
2,520
0.33
-
0.33
80
Theatre
6620 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin Theatre Co.*
AVERAGE
111
82
168
104
17
74
256
19
235
-
118
1184
14,214
11 ,910
18,215
16,937
5,648
23708
40,000
4,128
60,870
-
21737
217,367
2
2.56
3
2.83
0.6
2.47
2.5
0.34
9.08
-
2.82
25.38
50-300
50-300
50-300
50-300
50-300
50-300
300+
50-300
50-300
Church and School
Church
Church
Church and School
Church
Church and School
Church
Church
Church and School
7557 Amador Valley
7485 Village Parkway
8203 Village Parkway
7421 Amarillo Road
11873 Dublin Blvd
8850 Davona Drive
6444 Sierra Court
6325 Sierra Court
11555 Shannon Avenue
Resurrection Lutheran Church and Infant Car
Parkway Baptist
Church of Jesus Christ
John Knox Church and Pre-school/Daycare
Dublin Christian Church
St Phillips Lutheran Church and Pre-school
Crosswinds Church*
Tri-Valley Unity Church"
St.. Raymonds Church and School
AVERAGE*"
~
V
r;Y
00
~
improvements.
Average
Total
* Total of lease space, required parking, landscaping and 30% of parking for aisles and other
"*Valley Christian Center (VCC) is included in the analysis of schools.
District Facility Needs
1
1
1
25.3
1
Dublin Unified School
o
(Add capacity of 654
students to Dublin
High)
parcel in Area F, 20 acres
parcel owned by Dublin Land Co., 3.3 acres
parcel owned by Chang Lin, 104 acres
parcel owned by Chang Lin, .6 acres
Appendix 2,
Technical
High School
1 site provided in
EDSP
24.5
Fallon Village Site
Portion of Area F
in Fallon
1
Incomplete site
Village
1
Total = 25.3 acres
parcel in Area F, 30 acres
parcel in Fallon Village, 14.5 acres
1
1
A portion of 3 a-acre site
in Area F
Junior High
School
1 comple
provided
EDSP and a
portion of a site,
14.5 acres
te site
III
31.8
Fallon Village
Wallis
Area AlEDPO
3
3
Total =44.5 acres
parcel in Fallon Village, 10.6 acres
parcel in Wallis, 11.8 acres
parcel in Area A, 404 acres
parcel in EDPO, 5.0 acres
parcel in Area F, lOA acres
parcel Dougherty School, 10.5 acres
parcel Green School, 9.98 net acres
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Elementary
School
6 sites provided
in EDSP
81.6
5
4
Total = 62.68 acres
~
cYot\
:..J
Total
*Based on State standards of 1 a-acre minimum for elementary schools, 20-acre minimum for junior high schools, and 50-acre minimum for high
schools.
'"
DUBLINSCHUUL~~61
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Trustees
Gene Turner
October 9, 2002
Public Hearing - 8:00 P.M. - On Approval of School Facility Needs Analysis dated
August, 2002, and Resolution No. 2002/03-07 to Implement Level 2 Fees
on Residential Construction and Level 1 Fees on Commercial/Industrial Construction
as Justified in: the School Facility Needs Analysis
BACKGROUND";
The School Facility Needs Analysis approved by the Board of Trustees on October 11, 2000 which
was revised in August, 2001 and again in August, 2002, provides justification for the Dublin Unified
School District to administer Level 2 fees on residential construction. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65995.5, Level 2 fees may exceed the Level 1 fees on residential construction currently set
by the State Allocation Board at $2.14. The School Facility Needs AnalysiS justifies an increase in
Level 2 fees to the rate of $6.76 per square foot of new residential construction. The Level 2 fee can
only apply to new residential construction that is not under mitigation contract with the District.
In addition, the appendix to the SChool Facility Needs Analysis justifies ~he new maximum Level 1 fee
for commercial/industrial construction of $0.34 per square foot.! "
The Level 1 commercial/industrial and Level 2 residential fees take effect immediately upon adoption
and is effective for a period of one year.
FINANCIAL:
There are no costs associated with this item.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Board is asked to conduct a public hearing on School Facility Needs Analysis and School
Mitigation Fees at 8:00 p.m.
GT:lb
RECeiVED
OCT 1 8 200Z
DUBUN PLANNING
0-1
$CffOOLF.ActLITYNEE])S ANALySIS
FOl~.
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
<ItiP.. ..
August 2002
Final
Shilts Consultants, InC. (SOl)
2300 Boynton Ave., Suite 201
Fairfield, OA 94533
(707) 426-5016
'. as-Db
;)0 ~b2S1\
TABL~ OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARy................ ......... ....... .......... .................... ......... .................. ........... ................................. 2
II. D I STRI CT PR OFIL ES ........... .............................. ................. .................................................. ...... 6
A. DISTRICT PROFILES .......... ......................... ........................................................................................ 6
B. ENROLLMENTS ..... ......... .... .... .............. ....... .............................. .............. ...................................... ..... 8
III. SC H 00 L CAP A CITIES ......................................................................... .......................... ..... ....... 9
IV. PROJECTIONS AND. D EMOGRAPHI CS ................................................................................ 13
A. PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT.......... ... ................ ......... .............. ......... ..... .... ...... ...... ......... .................. 13
B. YIELD FACTORS ............... ........................... ......... .......................... ............................................. ..... 16
C. ENROLLMENTS FROM NEW HOUSING.......................................:...................................................... 17
D. UNHOUSED ENROLLMENTS....... ...... .......... .......................... ............. .... ......... ........ ............. .............. 18
. E. NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA ............................................................................................... 19
V. ALLOW ABLE COST AND FEES ............................................................................................. 20
F. TOTAL COST OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES PER NEW HOME ........................................................... 22
VI. SCHOOL FACILITY PLANS AND OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES ..................... 24
A. DUBLIN SCHOOL FACILITY PLANS..................................................................................................24----
B. OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES AND POTENTIAL COST OFFSETS ...............................................24
VII. LEVEL 3 FEE ELIGIBILITY .................................................................................................... 26
A. LEVEL 3 FEES ...... .......... ................. .................... ...... ........ ....................... ... ..................................... 26
VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR AbOPTION OF NEEDS ANALYSIS AND LEVEL 2 OR LEVEL
3 FE ES ......... ................. ........................ .................. ......... ........... ...;.................................. ............. 27
IX. CON CL USI 0 NS AND RECO MMEND A TIONS ..................................................................... 28
X. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL FEE JUSTIFICAZTION ..................................................... 29
A. SUMMARy................ .......... ..................... ..'. ...................................... ........... .......... ...... .................... 29
B. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FEES...... ......................... ................. ......... ............. ............ .............. ...... 29
C. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FEE JUSTIFICATION ...............................;............................................... 30
D. CONCLUSIONS....:................... .......... .......... ............. .........~. ..... .......... ............. ........... .... ..... .... ........... 33
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 2002
By Shilts Consultants. Inc
-1-
!)100
1. SUMMARY
This School Facility Needs Analysis. (Analysis) was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of Senate Bill 50, Chapter 407; Statues 1998, (hereinafter "Chapter
407/98" or "SB 50") which became effective on November 4, 1998 after voters in
California supported Proposition 1A. The purpose of this Analysis is to evaluate the
need for and amount of mitigation fees allowed for new residential construction,
pursuant to Chapter 407/98 for the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD).
Chapter 407/98 essentially authorizes qualifying school districts to levy three different
levels of developer fees. These three levels of fees are from Government Code
Sections 65995, 65995.5 and 65995.7. Developer fees levied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65995 are typically called "Statutory fees", "Stirling fees", or "Level 1
fees" and the current maximum Stirling fee amounts for K-12 facilities are $2.14 per
square foot of residential construction and $0.34 per square foot of
commercial/industrial construction. These amounts are to be increased again in the
year 2004 and every two years thereafter in an amount equal to the statewide cost index
for Class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board (SAB) at its
January meeting.
Chapter 407/98 established two new sections, Section 65995.5 and 65995.7 that allow
school districts to impose higher fees on residential construction if certain conditions
are met by the school districts. Government Code Section 65995.5 provides for an
alternative fee (hereinafter "Level 2 fee") that may provide approximately 50% of the
cost of school construction and site costs (using statewide average costs).
Government Code Section 65995.7 provides for developer fees that would be
approximately twice the amounts authorized for Level 2 fees. This "Level 3 fee" may
be levied by school districts if state funding becomes unavailable from the state
Allocation Board. In essence, Section 65995.7 allows a school district to effectively
double the Level 2 fee; however, if the school district later receives any state funding,
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts ~Consultants. lnc
-2-
~?? 0b21
any amounts collected in excess of Level 2 or 3 fees would have to be reimbursed to the
developers from whom it was collected.
With the passage of the education bond bill, AB 16, in April 2002, however,. authority
of school districts to levy Level 3 fees has been suspended through at least March 2004~
pending the outcome of the education Bond Package election in November 2002. If the
bond election is suceessful,authority to levy Level 3 fees will continue to be suspended
indefinitely. Should the bond election fail, Level 3 fees will be authorized after Ma:rch
2004 only if new constrnction funds are not available and. bonds for districts that
qualify for Critically Overcrowded School funding are also not available.
It should be noted that Levell, Level 2, and Level 3 fees can be levied on residential
construction prior to issuance of a building permit rather than only on certain projects
as a condition of development approval.
Summary of Findings:
1. School capacity pursuant to SB 50 is calculated based on the District's educational
standards for classroom loading. Using this measure of school capacity, which is
equivalent to the actual working capacity of current school facilities, the Dublin
Unified School District has capacity for 2,214 K-5 students, 1,000 6-8 students,
and 1,456 9-12 stud~nts for a total student capacity of 4,670 regular education
students. 1
2. The District's total regular education enrollments, as of October 2001, were
elementary 1,962 (K-5), 1,006 middle (6-8), and 1,195 high school (9-12)
students for a total CBED regular education enrollment of 4,163.
3. The majority of future residential development projects are covered by
grandfathered mitigation agreements. It is estimated that over the next 30 years,
over 90% of the new single-family and multi-family units outlined in the City of
Dublin General Plan are under mitigation agreements with the District.
4. Mitigation fee.s from new development funded most of the currently available
school capacity and, as required by law and terms of the mitigation contracts, this
I Capacity for Dublin High School was revised from 1,890 to 1,195 to account for sub-standard sized and non-conforming
classrooms. Final confirmation by the state is pending.
Dublin Unified School District.
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By ShUts Consultants. lnc
-3-
~
, dP1~81 ,
new school capacity must be available to students 'generated from new homes
encumbered under these mitigation agreements,
5. Based on a study of historical residential construction and market absorption rates
for new homes, approximately 3,250 new. single family homes (of which 3,000
are attached and 250 are detached) and 1,500 new multi-family units are forecast
to be constructed within the District over the next 5 years.
6. A yield factor analysis of newly constructed residential units finds that each new
attached single family home generates an average of 0.74 K-12 students while
each detached single family home generates an average of 0.25 K-12 students.
Each new multi-family unit generates an average of 0.13 students.
7. 2,478 additional students are expected from the forecasted new single-family
residential (attached and detached) and 1,500 multi-family units expected over the
next five years. This breaks down to 1,220 elementary, 583 middle, and 675 high
school grade students.
8. Given the current school capacity and enrollments projected from new housing as
described above, 2,385 new K-12 students generated over the next five years will
be "unhoused' within current school facilities.
9. The allowable costs for school construction pursuant to SB 50 are $5,720 per
elementary student,$6,050 per middle school student, and $7,920 per high school
student.
10. In addition to school construction costs, SB 50 states that 50% of site acquisition,
site development, and off-site develppment costs can be included. The allowable
site acquisition and site development costs per student for the District are $13,472
per elementary student, $20,370 per middle school student, and $19,714 per high
school student.
11. Therefore, the total allowable costs per student for Level 2 fees are $19,192 per
elementary student, $26,420 per middle school student, and $27,634 per high
school student.
12. Using these cost factors and the projected number of new homes, the maximum
amount chargeable to residential development as Level 2 fees is $55,555,740. Of
this total amount, $22,062,310 is attributable to new elementary facilities,
$15,341,750 is attributable to new middle scJ:lOol facilities, and $18,151,680 is
attributable to new high school facilities. These costs represent approximately
50% of the total allowable SB50 school construction costs.
13. Based on an average new single family residential home size of 2,200 square feet
(detached unit), 1,650 square feet for a new attached single family residential
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-4-
home, and 800 square feet for a multi-family residential unit, the total projected
new residential area is 8,212,500 square feet.
14. There are no other available local fundin.g sources for capital improvements to
finance school facility needs for new residential development that would be
subject to the Level 2 fees.
15. Therefore, the allowable composite Level 2 fee is $6.76 per square foot of new
single-family residential or new multi-family resi:c1ential area.
16. The distinction between llallowablell school costs for State funding and SB50
developer fee purposes and actual school costs should be noted. The currently
estimated actual cost of new school facilities is per new home. In comparison, the
maximum allowable Level 2 fee is $6.76 per square foot, which offsets only 34%
of the total costs.
Based on the findings from this report, the Dublin Unified School District shoulq
continue levying Level 2 fees at the rates listed above for all new residential development
not grandfathered under pre-SB50 mitigation agreements. The District should also levy
the Levell commercial/industrial fee at the maximum amount of $0.34 per square foot as
justified in the appendix of this report> .
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
~~'B1
-5-
'"
3\ to ~1
II. DISTRICT PROFILES
A. District Profiles
The Dublin Unified School District currently serves 4,241 K-12 students in an area
encompassing the city of Dublin in Alameda County. The District maintains 5
elementary schools, 1 middle school, and 1 high school" as well as 1_ continuation. high
school facility.
The following page contains a map of the District and of the Dublin area. As this
Analysis will later document, the major growth area is located in the eastern portion of
Dublin. This area contains significant amounts of undeveloped land with the potential
for over 12,193 single family and multi-family dwelling units. The City of Dublin
Planning and Building Departments expect build out of this area to capacity within the
next 30 years, with the majority of growth to occur in the next ten years.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-6-
.......
t)
....
...
....'
tA
-
b
,--
o
o
J::
(.)
CJ)
-a
CD
. . ....
~
. ..,.
c
::)
c
.-
--
~
J
C
i '--~;:"\'" . ", .
\ ~..::; <....~ \. ';\
\ ./' \;:/ ----- \
\'-r--'\ I, ~ \
'! ". )....
\ "//
!/
~""""\.,
..--=:-
..,.,.J:G
~'_..:'~
~:~
rue[esSe.1
~~J~~
- ...............:-\-
_. ---.:-i
....p.-
':~. <\:,:~.S
~
I
:se
8
.........
-., "
'-', /
~
"- ,~.,- '-:=:,---'-
.~-=--_.:.
. ---=-~~~
/
/
i!
-<
~
Z*0
~
r
,
i/
V
:-7;.-:- -;fl=-
-,'-'
,;; '.. ~
':'~" -= =-- ..~.:..-
~
-
c...-
"--::::;.
--,
'0_-- '
.-......
'..--.
-~
':.' ---:
~~~~,.,
../.....
,...
.,..:-::-
__ "'...\ ...r.
_..~._... -
\,
,
'.
,
;
\\
\
\.
.----
~
CIS
"C C
~~~g ~
~ CIS .! S .1:_
C'tJCWoi
S3~ .g
\, CD~m'; c
~ ~~ (I) W
~.e~-!~ e
en (I); (I) W:::I J!!
15 Ee E cow
c,g -we> (I) .S!I (.) . ~
t/) (J ii.i W:.:.:: CIS IV
:;::) en c ;>"C "C .c
c c J!l 0.5 I.'I!(I) Q.)E Cl
.- -- CU' CI) - ~....". :s
:5:5eC;-iseg CO
:::I :::I -.- ....~. u. ~
C Ct/) Z c"::;" . 0
o ~>:,~.D(]tlDD:
"-
I
t-....
~
~
~
..
~
......:i
.~ !i;?
.e~
.::; S! ti
Q~~
C...;:;: "'~
0"'.....
1i ~~. e
Ci5"""_
~.....;:; \
~ .- :::
L- '::::: C
';::-'(..)u
~~~ \
-or::::::
...c ..;: -..l
~c55s
~ ~ "'b "8 '7
B. Enrollments
Table 1 summarizes historical October enrollments for the current school year and the
previous six years. The high school and middle school grade levels have experienced
the most pronounced levels of growth with a combined average annual increase of24%
over the five-year period. In total, the Dublin Unified School District has experienced
an average annual growth rate of 15% over this five-year period.
Table 1 - Historical October Enrollments (CBEDs)
Year 1996-97 1991-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Kindergarten 305 292 292 279 311 325
First 323 335 299 286 313 339
Second 296 333 334 285 301 321
Third 311 296 336 338 309 301
Fourth 325 315 293 325 356 321
Fifth 272 317 316 301 335 355
Sixth 284 - 284 323 329 321 338
Seventh 287 300 278 331 344 31-9
Eighth 248 280 314 286 339 349
Ninth 292 249 288 297 315 358
Tenth 250 271 246 280 276 325
Eleventh 210 226 259 225 265 282
Twelfth 202 186 213 241 216 230
K through 5 1,832 1,888 1,870 1,814 1,925 1,962
6 through 8 819 864 915 946 -1,004 1,006
9 through 12 954 932 1,006 1,043 1,072 1,195
Total Regular Ed. 3,605 3,684 3,791 3,803 4,001 4,163
High School Continuation 101 108 97 94 81 78
TOTAL ENROLLMENT 3,706 3,792 3,888 3,897 4,082 4,241
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilfs Consultants, lnc
;
-8-
34 00 ~1
III. SCHOOL CAPACITIES
Pursuant to SB 50, existing school capacity for State school construction funding
purposes is determined by a teaching station methodology whereby each permanent
teaching station is counted and loaded at the rate of 25 students per classroom for
grades K - 5 and 27 students per classroom for grades 6 - 12. Pursuant to Education
Code Section 17071.30(b), the maximum number of portable classrooms, reduced by .
the number of portable classrooms used as interim housing for modernization projects,
. included within the capacity calculation shall not exceed 25% of the number of
permanent classrooms.
Table 2 on the following page presents an analysis of total teaching station counts and
housing capacities using State standards for new school construction funding. By this
measure, the Dublin Unified School District has a total student capacity for 5,861 K-12
students.
It is important to note that school capacity as determined for State school construction
funding eligibility, has no bearing on actual school capacity. The actual or real
capacity of a school district isdependent on the local educational program and services
of the district. Moreover, the State capacity for funding purposes does not take into
account that special education classrooms are loaded with less than one-half the number
of students as a regular education classroom, and that computer rooms and other labs at
elementary schools do not add capacity to the school because students do not rotate
between rooms.
To account for this important distinction between capacity for State funding purposes
and actual school capacity as determined by the local educational program, SB50
allows for the use of District standards for determining school capacities and future
school facility needs within a Needs Analysis. Given that the actual capacity of District
facilities is largely determined by the District's high-quality educational program, this
Analysis uses District capacity. (The use' of State funding standards would incorrectly
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-9~
35 Clb 81
find that excess capacity is available for enrollments from new housing, when In
actuality this space is used to support the current educational programs and enrollments
of the District?)
Table 2 .....; School Capacity for State Funding Eligibility
SB50
Grade Teaching Loadin'g Totlil
Level Stations Standards C'apa~ltyl
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Dougherty Elementary K.5 21 25 525
Dublin Elementary K-5 26 25 650
Frederiksen Elementary 3 K.5 37 25 925
Murray Elementary K.5 24 25 600
Nielsen Elementary , K-5 22 25 550
State Capacity Adjustments (111 )
Elementary Teachin"g Station Capacity 130 25 3,139
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Wells Middle 6-8 60 27 1,620
State Capacity Adjustments (93)
Middle School Teaching Capacity 60 27 1,527
HIGH SCHOOLS
Dublin High 2 9-12 48 27 1,216
State Capacity Adjustments (21)
High School Teaching Capacity 48 27 1,195
TOTAL REGULAR CA!=lACITY (State Funding Standard) 238 5,861
Valley Continuation High 'f 9.12 12 27 324
Source: Jenkins Advisory Team Inc, for the Dublin Untied School District
Notes:
1 Capacity is equal to the counted number of total teaching stations times 25 students per station for grades K-6 and 27
students per station for grades 7-12.
2 Capacity for Dublin High is estimated, because additional review by State is required to account for substandard sized
classrooms,
3 Capacity for Frederiksen includes 13 portable classrooms,
State loading standards do not take into account labs, spe.cial education, music, arts and other special
program classrooms which either do not add capacity to the school or are roaded at levels lower than State
standards. '
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts ConsZl~tants, Inc
-10-
~
~
...
~
~
=
~
.....
r:/:!
..
i ~. 0 (0 <::I
'u 0 0 0 0 V 0 ..... 0 M
Q I'll to to V .... to O. N. V -=t
l- e. V V to V C") N ..,;
I'll ..... .....
U
... '.
ell
c.i :S
ell 2 .... ..... .... ..... ..... to C)
Cl.
CI) ,;
w
...
U III
<: E C") C") C") C") C")
u 0
~
....
III V
.c .... ..... .... .... .....
I'll .....
..J
III
N E
.... ... co N
C, III V .....
f/l
U
III
eo E 0
... to to co to V
, ell V
"f ell
U
ell
'? E' C") V N
... N "...
.... VI ..... ..... N ..... ....
ell
U
cil ~
III
... E
Cl C") N N
"0 ... N N
c f/l
f/l
:2 U
ell VI N N
"0 Ci to to to L() L() co
I'll > ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,. .... ....
... ~ to I I -
(.l) ell en C) c
..J 0
;:;
III
c.>
~
VI "0
E W
0 .c: I..
0 It) >- !!!
... .... 0)
VI ~ ro :I: ~
III - en
I'll ro c
U 1: 0) ~ ~ c C.l
~ .Q c::
>- Q) E ro ro -
.Cl E ro Q) 1: 'E 15
- ~
.?;- .9:l c ill 0) 0) '" ::l
Q) E "" c '(3
'0 l.lJ E c E Q) :;::;
I'll Q) Q) Q) :0 .c: c III
e. >-0) CI) UJ UJ 32 0) 0 Q.
I'll t- :I: III
(.) Q)w .J:i:: C :2: Co) ()
.... ..c c -t:; >- 0) .8 >-
u Q) ro .!!2
';:: 0) := "0 .... (/) ::0 2 III
- ::l "Q 0) .... (j) (j) ..-
ell 0 ::l ... ::l Z ~. ::l ro 0
0 0 0 u.. ::a: Cl > I-
....
~
.C
....
,;a
Q
ell
=
.-
~
;=i
.~
.-
~
~
::..
~
U.
o.
:>
_.
-
~
rri
I
~
~
:Q
~
E-.
~lo ()b~n
E '0 N .... en
b- e N N E
e.o 0
'1) 0 =::
0)'0 l'- ...
I'll e oi N (I) c-
o. (I)
III 0. ~ co VI
I) ~ ~ u 0
Ql C IE 0 -,:, 0
:E .12 III III ... ,...
co
I'll 1ii :5 'S; '"0 C
'" ~ tlI
::l I) iii c: :5
::l co
'0 "0 '00 .", (is Ul
'0 .Ill Cll
Cll .Cl c::: VI
III OJ E ~
'0 :5 III ~ III
C E ~ 0 III
0) - u e
0 > ,.;!. (I) -0
-0 0- .2 0) .~
... :l N :5 lJ)
>- Q..... :e .!!!
Ql .5 III .... .9 u Q;
:5 I N
c::: VI en ..... .... -0
0) .9 0 III III cb C. 8.2:
fIJ E ~ 0) I'll
Z fIJ '0 VI .l:2 III
III 0) 0 .~ !:!! .c ::
VI III c: .:::
I) :s e (!) j :; (ll I)
E Ql III '"0 :E
.0 8 c c-
o lIl. .2 :::l !l:
e ~ CIl ti :g Ui
... <:l -0
VI I) 0). ::l cil N Q)
'" III .::: Q) '0 c::: u; N -0
III 0. '0 t: 0) :g 0 a; :::
"13 tlI 0 0:: "13
I) -0
... C >- E ':; Q) '"0 X I
Q) :g CIl .Q .c :5 (ll 0) .....
0. '0 0 e: 16 0) .....
2 Vi c 0) .0 '0 lii I
.S! VI lii co 0 "5
c 15 W :l co I) CIl U
0) l/l N N (ij m VI
-0 ,!: I) '0 I'll III E
::: ::: (3 :5 0 Co> 0
Vi -0 -0 C Ol ~ 0
(I) Ql Q) '0 .9 E c: li5
0 C w m c ,~ ctl Ul
N I'll I'll
:> .S! >- '0 5, ....: I'll
'0 0 VI .... <:l
I) ell Ql "E 0) 0 0-
>-.::: c Ci 0)
:::;. '0 .r::. - I'll 0) en C
'u C 0. 0) '0 LD co 'u) (;l 0 .~
CIl VI C , 11) lO
0) ]i :: I'll c en
0. m CIl Vi "f co -0 .2 0
CIl ~ I) III III e: c: 'E
I) ~ ctl
-; 'u Ql Ol III III 0
t: .0 C 'tl '0 CIl u :5
:5 0) I)
,S! '6 CIl CIl ell ::l ,
ts c.:::;. 5 G E '0 en c:
fIJ ;, 'C3 CIl Q) en 0
::l "0 .2 0 VI ..!!2 c:
-0 0 .S g, :g e I'll Ul C"l
e: .::: -0 CIl ell I'll N
I) CIl I) III Q)
Ql VI Vi I'll '0 .?:-
N ~ ~ ~ is "13 ;: (ll w
'00 c: III c:
III iii 0 c .... C
III C 1: ~ .Q Cll (!) g
III -
CIl Ql ro CIl '0 1ii ,f/l '0 '6
<:l E ... U ell C IE
.E ;:l c: I) &~ ~
~ Ql -0 'g 0 0 ::l I'll
a; Ql Q) N N '0 Vi ~
Q) 13
ro ~ ro oS c:: .t:
-; ~ 0 :c I)
ell 'E "3 Q) '(3 u ;: CIl
"'0 .Cl Ol '0 Q)
Q) !!1 E e: Q) 11) Ul
-0 0 ell C. Ol E VI
ro VI .~ VI I'll C
.2 Oi () "'-' '0 l!! 0 Q)
"S >- .S! '(3 c u e '0
Q) Cl. 0= .l\l CIl I'll '" .3
m 0. c Ul
E ell III CIl 0) C'( u .9:! I'll III
-0 0 '\> 15 () *"". <3 '(jj 13 ,...
c (,) ~~ iE .... N
CIl 0) >. ~ III C '0 -; '"
c -; "2 0) ~ Q) C5 <::::>
VI Q) <::::>
0 c: 'c: '0 0 "C "C .9 .2: '0 "C '"
'00 Cl Q) C C CIl Ol c:: Q)
'w ~ t ,Q ~ C5 CIl Z. .l!l -0 '5
III CIl " 'll ~
Q) (l) U 0. ~ '0 ,g ~
III -0 (;;l .c l\l .c
Q) .9 .VI <J) ::l ..!!l 0. :::l .<J)
c;, CIl "'0 CIl CIl E ~
c: 'C ~ -0 Q) "0 u <.0 0 ,~'
'00 Q) $ ... 0 .9 .... e .~
<J) 0:; Cll .:::
;:l c: "3 u 'in CIl <J) ~
c 15 :: Q) ell ;::;
2 .!!! 0 Cl f/') E '0 CIl ,~ g
Q) I) l!! ~ ::l "13 ~
III Ul :5 '0 ::l U Q
E .0 ... CIl E c~ ~ ..:::;
~ >- c:: .e c .....
0 'x .- .0 Cl ~ ~..
e '0 .Cl Q) III Q) l\l ui >-CIl Cl ~
III "'0 m i:- "0 E E ,~ :=t:: ..::: ~
Q) u 0 ~
VI c: 0 Q) [0. c)S
CIl .Q Cii III 'C3 .::: W '0 Qi .::::
"13 ro c E ~ u Q) l\l "f "'=l C. 5
Cl 0 0. III :::;. > '0 U
C U e '5 III ~~
$ l; 'w e CIl '0 W .J:: Q) :c
'00 (l) III I) 0. 0) O)'C ~u
; .::: c. U
VI -0 III Ql J::o Cl Q) :I: ::> :S '::l
~ l\l II) CIl :E '(3 ::l Cll Q) <:l k; ~
<:l E "13 CIl 0 "0 :::: c:: .S:
a; Q) III III Cl ; 'E ::c ~ C
'tl Q) 0 Q) ;:l 0. C ~
Cl) c: .::: 0 Ul CIl <( 0 E ::: '"2 Cl
'0 :2 l- e:: 0) "C () CD Cl ;:l ..!;::
.::: -0 0 0 Q u 0
Z ~ N <'\. I- CIl.. '" '" () l- I) v:: --
31 CYig 7
()
Table 4 below compares the 2001-02 enrollment data with the student capacity for the K-
5, 6-8 and 9~12 grade school levels. As of today, the District's enrollments do not exceed
capacity.
Table 4 - School Capacities vs. Enrollment by District Standards
District October 2001 Excess
Capacity Enrollment Capacity
Elementary Schools 2,214 1,962 252
Middle School 1,000 1,006 (6)
High School 1,216 1,195 21
Total Regular Education 4,430 4,163 267
Continuation High ' 240 78 162
Total K -12 4,670 4,241 429
Dublin Unified School District
Schoo! Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-12-
~ tsb'81
IV. PROJECTIONS AND DEMOGRAPHICS
A. Projected Development
The City of Dublin has experienced slow to moderate growth swings over the last ten
years. As indicated in Graph 1 below, the heaviest development occurred in the last six
years wi,th residential building permits issued between 1996 thru July 2002.
GRAPH 1
Annual Residential Building Permits
City of Dublin
1,100 -
1,000 -
900 -
800 -
700 -
600--
500 .
400
300 .
200 .
100 -
o -
..'f>
:~~;
4(,-
:~?
r:t;O:J Rl'=> Rl" RlCV Rll'\;) ~ Rl~ Rllo ~ Rl'O RlO) ';::)'=> S;)" s;)CV
,,0., ~ ,,05 ~ ,,05 ~ ~ ~ "os ~ ~ tf tf tf
'!DSFR DMFR,
Source: Cities of Dublin Planning Department
Growth patterns for the latter half of the 1990is indicate an upward trend in the
construction and absorption rates of resideIltial units. The City of Dublin Planning
Department has already established a general plan for development of the eastern portion
of Dublin where most future growth will occur. The Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment (1994, Wallace Roberts & Todd) estimates a total of 13,661 new residential
units to be built over a 30-40 year period. With the inclusion of other development
projects, the total number of approved and proposed units exceeds 13,000. Table 5 on the
following page outlines current and projected building projects that the City of Dublin
has identified;
Dublin Unified School District'
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-13-
3q Dl.J '01
Table 5 - Current and Approved Residential Building Projects
Remllning I Remaining Apt i TotII,
, Total Planned i Remlinlng SFR . Small Remaining Remaining
Project Unlll ! SFR' I.ot' TDwnhorrie:l 'Condo' j' Unit" Developer
Dublin.Ranch (Phase I) 847 61 61 Lin Family
Dublin Ranch A 562 ! 453 453 Lin Family
Dublinf!anCl1JH: 1,875 I 1 958 916 1,875 Un Family
DublinRanciiF~H 2,176 I 91 689 1,3911; 2.176 Lin FlilmHy
ArChaloh. Apartments 177 i 177 177 Arehatone
Wesl Sybase Campas (Site ~a 15A) 821 ..1 82' 821
I
Waterford I emerald Glen VUlage 390 I 315 315 Shea Prop.
Yarra Yarra Ranch; Greenbriar Phase 1 126 25 25 Greenbriar
Yarra Yarra Ranch. Greenbriar Phase 2 46 ! 46 46 Greenbriar
Yarra Yarta Ranch. Greenbriar Phase 3 193 193 193 Greenbriar
Tranatt Cenler 1,500 1,500 1,500 Alameda Ce,
Gyg; 7 10 10 10
Dublin Land Cempany I Diamente 7 300 300 300 Dublin Land Co,
East Dublin Area (within City limits) 9,023 852 1,682 493 5,125 7,952 I Braddeck and Logan
"BraddOck and Logan (Mandeville) 0 207 207 207
Creak · 446 446 446 i Creak
JerdtlnlFA TCo · 1.011 353 94 S64 1,011
Chen ~ 132 I 132 132
Andersen 6 26 26 I 26
I
Righetti 0 35 35 I 35
Branuaugh 6 36 36 36
Fallen enterprises 6 633 633 633 ; Braddeck and Legan
Eastern Annexation Area 2,526 1,736 94 i 0 696 2,526
Dublin Ranch West (Un-Wallis) 775 65 330 380 0 775 Lln Family
Bragg 7 20 20 20
Missien Peak 7 120 98 22 120 Standard Pacific
SiiverialHaighUNielson 7 259 50 113 9ll 259 Pinn Bros.
Tipper 7 82 82 62
Vargas et ai' 154 14 140 154
Sperfs1age 7 12 12 12
Meller · 269 269 269
Dublin Ranch North · 4 4 4 Un Family
Kobold 7 20 20 20
Northern Annexation Area 1,715 48S 571 636 22 I 1,715
I'
West Dublin BART 160 160 160
Camp Parks TBD TBD 0
Legacy Apartments 296 ; 12 296 306
Standa"rd Pacific Apa'r1menls 100 i' 100 100 Stanaiirtl Pecific
i
Alcosta Blvd Townhomes 60 I 60 60
Castle Companies 60 I 14 14
Schaefer Ranch 300 300 300
Totai 'Oowntown Dublin 976 0 12 6~ 87~ 942
Grand Total 14.24d 2,874 I 2,359 1,189 6,713 13,135
Footnotes:
t Deta~~edand zarpioUi~. units; attached units on individual parcels
, Detaened, zero iot line
· Attaehedunns only., townhous~s
, Atti.CliOd fiats, gaidion lpanments. stacl<ed flat.
, a..~dupon.ap;>ro.ed stage 1Ft? SUbmittal, subject to change
o a..~ upOn approved Stage 1 PO
7 a..sed upon east ou~r~S~fic Plan
· Bas6dupon DubUn Genenii Plan
Souret: Eddie Peebody," Cty of OIlblln Planning Cepa"",.nt
Connie Goldade. MacKay and Somps
Notes:
No number next to the projed indicates that all the units were, completed.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-14-
~o 0,-, ~1
V
Future levels of residential development will primarily be determined by the supply and
demand for new homes in the area. Considering the recent growth history in the Dublin
area, the demand for new homes should not be constrained by the supply. Therefore,
development projections were formulated under a market absorption methodology
whereby the demand for new housing stock was assumed to increaSe 'at a moderate
degree abo~e historicalleveis. this level of development is based on the assumption that
economic conditions in the District will remain positive.
Table 6 below lists the 5-year projected residential development within the Dublin'
Unified School District. Based on historical development, current building projects, and
the remaining nUl1:lber of units to be built, this Analysis projects 3,000 single family
detached, 250 single family attached and 1,500 new multi-famIly reSidential units by the
year 2006. As noted, the District should continue. to closely monitor development
acti vity .
Table 6 - Projected Residential Development by Year
SFR
I
Year Detached i Attached MFR Total
.
2002 600 50 300 950
2003 600 50 300 950
2004 600 50 "";$00 950
2005 600 50. 300 950
2006 600 50 300 950
5 Yr Total 3,000 250 1,500 4,750
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-15-
B. Yield Factors
L\- \ vb CS 7.
Student generation rates,. otherwise known as yield factors, are the average number of
students that are g~nerated by each housing unit. Student generation rates for new
housing units were determined by Shilts Consultants using an address match
methodology whereby enrollment data was address-matched with housing units
constructed over a five-year period. Using a housing sample size of over 1,200 units, the
yield analysis found that new single family attached homes are generating an average of
0.74 K-12 students. The yield factor for single-family detached homes is 0.25 students
while multi-family residential units are generating an average of 0.13 K-12 students.
Table 7 - Student Yield Factors from New Housing
Housing Type K-5 6-8 9-12 K -12
New Single Family Residential (detached) 0.36 0.17 0.21 0.74
New Single Family Residential (attached) 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.25
Multi-Family Residential' 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.13
Dublln Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-/6-
-~ z... vb ~1
C. Enrollments/rom New Housing .
Table 8 below lists the number of students projected by year and grade level from the
forecasted new homes. If 4,750 new housing units are constructed as projected over the
next five years, and each new SFR attached, SFR detached and MFR is expected to yield
0.74, 0.25 and 0.13 students respectively, then the Dublin Unified School District
enrollments will increase by approximately 2,478 students.
Table 8 - Projected Enrollments from New HO\lsing
SFR Students
Year Detached Attached MFR K - 5 6-8 9-12 K -12
2002 600 50 300 244 117 135 496
2003 1,200 100 600 488 233 270 991
2004 1,800 150 900 732 350 405 1,487
2005 2,400 200 1,200 976 466 540 1,982
2006 3,000 250 1,500 1,220 583 675 2,478
Total 3,000 250 1,500 1,220 583 675 2,478
Dublin UnifiedSchool District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-17-
43l.)b~1
D. Unhoused Enrollments
Table 9 presents the projection of unhoused students by year. This is the proJected
number of new students in excess of current school capacities.
Table 9 - Unhoused Enrollments by Year
Total
Unhoused
Year K_S1 6-8. 9 _122 K -12
2002 (172) ( 117) (114) (403)
2003 (416) (233) (249) (898)
2004 (660) (350) (384 ) (1,394)
2005 (904) (466) (519) (1,889)
2006 (1,148) (583) (654 ) (2,385)
Total (1,148) (583) (654) (2,385)
Notes:
1 K. 5 unhoused capacity accounts for available capacity on in East Dublin because
all development will be in East Dublin and it is not feasible to bus students to West
Dublin.
2 9 - 12 unhoused adjusted for available capacity at Dublin High School.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By ,Shilts Consultants, lnc
-18-
t..\ '~ub~1
E. New Residential Building Area
An analysis conducted by Shilts Consultants of current building permits issued within the
District found the average size Of a new detached single family homes to be 2,200 square
fe,et, a new attached single family home to be 1,650 square feet, and the average dwelling
size for multi-family units to be 800 square feet. As a result, Table 10 projects over 8.2
million square feet of new residential are~gver the next 5 years.
Table 10 - New Residential Building Area
SFR
D~~a9Qed Attach~d
MFR
TOTAL
Average Dwelling Size (Sq. Ft.)
Tota! Units (5 years)
2,200
3,000
1,650
250
800
'1,500
4,750
Total Residential Square Footage
. 6,600,000
412.500
1,200,000
8,212,500
Dublin Unif/ed School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-19-
, , ~t5~81 .
v. ALLOWABLE COST AND FEES
Education Code Section 17072.10 establishes allowable cost factors for school
construction that are used to determine the appropriate Level 2 fee for new residential
development. These cost factors were evidently established at approximately 500/0 of
statewide school construction costs. It should be noted however, that the actual cost of
school construction as shown in Table 12 is significantly higher than the State cost
factors indicate. Any shortfall in funding from the state school construction.. bond
program (recently funded by Proposition 1A) and Level 2 fees will need to be addressed
by local school districts.
SB50 provides an unhoused pupil grant of $5,720 per elementary student, $6,050 per
middle school student, and $7,920 per high school student that can be included in
calculating total allowable SB50 school construction costs. In addition, the Dublin
Unified School District can include 50% of the 'cost of site acquisition, offsite
improvements, and site development. The site acquisition and development costs equate'
to $13,472 per elementary student, $20,370 per middle school student, and $19,714 per
high school student bringing total SB50 school construction costs per student to $19,192
per elementary student, $26,420 per middle school student, and $27,634 per high school
student.
The determination of allowable costs and Level 2 fees is presented in Table 11. This
table calculates a composite single family/multi-family fee based on' aggregate SB50 new
school facility construction costs. This fee is the amount that is justified and should be
established for new residential construction. As shown, the District can justify a Level 2
single family/multi-family fee in the amount of $6.76 per square foot of new residential
area.
~
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-20-
L/~ D:D ~7
Table 11 - Allowable Level 2 Fee Calculation
Grade Level
K.5 6.8 9 - 12 Total
Unhoused Enrollment From New Development 1,148 583 654 2,385
New School Size 540 1,000 1 .400
Schools Needed 2.13 0.58 0.47
Acreage Required per Campus 10 28.0 40.0
Total Acreage Required 21.30 16.24 113.80
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre $1,180,000 $1,180,000 $1,180,000 I
Site Development Cost per Acre1 $275,000 $275,000 ' $200,000
Total Site Acquisition/Development CostJAcre $1.455,000 $1,455,000 $1,380,000
Allowable S850 Site Acq.lDevel. Costs per Acre2 $727,500 $727,500 $690,000
S850 Unhoused Pupil Grant3 $5,720 $6,050 $7,920
Allowable S850 Site Acq.lDevel. Cost per Student4 $13,472 $20,370 $19,714
Total Allowable Costs per Student $19,192 $26,420 $27,634
Total S850 School Facilities Cost5 $6,566,560 $3,527,150 $5,179,680 $15,273,390
Total S850 Site Acquisition & Development Costs6 $15.495,750 $11,814,600 $12,972,000 $40,282,350
Total Allowable S850 Costs $22,062,310 $15,341,750 $18,151,680 $55,555,740
Total New Residential Area (Sq. Ft.) ,- 8,212,500
Composite Single Family/Multi-Family Fee per Square Foot $6.76
NOTES:
I land costs are estimated at $27 per square foot or $1.18 million per acre.
2 Estimated cost per acre for rough site development. utilities and public infrastructure improvements.
~ Pursuant to 8850. 50% of total site acquisition and development costs are allowable in calculating Level 2 fees.
4 Allowable 8850 funding per student. These amounts are adjusted annually by the state to represent approximately 50% of actual construction costs
per student. Updated at SAB meeting on January 23, 2002.
DUBLIN. SCHOOL~~~1
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO:
Board of Trustees
FROM:
Gene Turner
DATE:
October 9, 2002
RE:
Public Hearing - 8:00 P.M. - On Approval of School Facility Needs Analysis dated
- August, 2002, and Resolution No. 2002/03-07 to Implement Level 2 Fees
on Residential Construction and Level 1 Fees on Commercialllndustrial Construction
as Justified in' t\:1e School Facility Needs Analysis
BACKGROUND;
y-; rJ;;, '8'7
t...,...)
F. Total Cost of New School Facilities Per New Home
Table 12 below lists the current cost of school construction, site acquisition, site
development, interim housing and transportation within the District. This is the estimated
actual or total cost of constructing new school facilities and is based on recent
construction costs for schools in the District and the area.
As shown the total cost per new single family home equals $43,532. In comparison, the
Level 2 developer fees pursuant to Chapter 407/98 and Government Code Section
65995.5 provide an average of $.14,883 per new home, which equates to approximately
34% of the total cost of new school facilities per home. State bond funds can provide up
to an equal amount of school construction costs. Therefore, the combination of Level 2
fees and State funding covers approximately 68% of the total costs, and the unfunded
amount per new home is $9,125.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis. August 2002
By Shilts Consultants. lnc
-22-
.~~ 'D't. '81
. Table 12 - Total Cost of New School Facilities
Grade Level
,
K.5 6-8 9.12 K .12 Totals
"
Capacity of New School 1 540 1,000 1,400
Yield Rates - Students per New SFR 0.36 0.17 0.21 0.74
New School Cost 2
Land Cost/Site Development per Acre $1,455,000 $1,455,000 $1,380,000
Campus Acreage 10.0 28.0 40.0
Total School Area 40,500 88,000 140,000
Construction Cost per Sq. Fl $210 $220 $225
Architect $619,000 $1,355,000 $2,205,000
Construction Management $663,000 $1,452,000 $2,363,000
inspections/Engineering $442,000 $968,000 $1,575,000
Furniture/EquipmentIT echnology $885,000 $1,936,000 $3,150,000
New School Cost $25,664,000 $65,811,000 . $95,993,000
Interim and Transportation
Interim Housing (20/1000) 3 $1,232,(}00
AddiUonal Buses (311000) 4 $508,200
Total Interim and Trans. $1,740,200
Cost per Student $47,526 $65,811 $68,566 $1,130
Total Cost per New Home $17,109 $11,188 $14,399 $836 $43,532
.l: ..
Allowable Altemative 1 Cost'Student ' ..JIl' $19,192 $26,420 $27,634 $0
, State Funding Amount per Student $19,192 $26,420 $27,634 $0
Potential Capital Revenues per Student $38,384 $52,840 $55,269 $0
Potential Capital Revenue per New Home $13,818 $8,983 $11,606 $0 $34,407
Unfunded Cost per Student ($9,141) ($12,971) ($13,298) ($1,130)
Unfunded Cost per New Home ($3,291) ($2,205) ($2,793) ($B36) ($9,125)
Notes:
1 Capacities are based upon a traditional caiendar school year.
2 Cost includes land ($1.8M/acre), other acquisition costs, design, tests, service site development, generel site development, construction, furniture,
equipment, and support facilities.
modular classrooms will be needed for interim housing for each 1,000 student enrollment growth at a cost of $40,000 per classroom for intrim installationand
leasing.
4 Additional buses will also be required with enrollment growth. Approximately 3 additional buses may be required for each 1,000 students of enrollment
growth.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-23-
4q ~bS7
VI. SCHOOL FACILITY PLANS AND OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
A. Dublin School Facility Plans
The City of Dublin's Eastern Dublin General Plan has afforded space for future
development of school facilities. As such, the District has planned for the construction of
two new elementary schools and one new middle school facility to accommodate new
growth in this area. Additional construction will depend upon actual growth levels. in
Eastern Dublin and the District will continue to closely monitor these trends.
B. Other Local Funding Sources and Potential Cost Offsets
As previously mentioned in the summary, the Dublin UIiifiedSchool District has a
number of current and future building projects grandfathered under pre-SB50 mitigation
agreements. These agreements stipulate that the development projects will pay specified
dollar amounts as mitigation fees that \\'ill be used for the construction of school
facilities. Pursuant to these agreements and state laws, the school facilities financed with
mitigation fees must be made available for students from the development projects
paying the fees.
Therefore, students. generated from construction of new housing units under these
mitigation agreements are not eligible for the SB50 Level 2 fees, because the mitigation
agreements provide for their school facility needs.
In 1986, the State Legislature, by means of AB2926, adopted what became known as the
School Financing Plan of 1986. Prior to the adoption of AB2926, financing for the
construction of new schools varied widely throughout the State; some school districts had
no means of financing needed facilities while others were charging in excess of $10,000
per new home. In essence, AB2926 established the parameters for levying fees and
created the opportunity for school districts to develop a partnership with local agencies to
provide the necessary financing for the new school facilities needed for students
generated by new development.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Ana(vsis. August 2002
.By Shilts Consultants. lnc
-24-
60 Db "81
Initially, AB2926 authorized school districts to impose School Facility Fees (developer
fees), as a condition of the issuance of building pennits, in order to finance certain school
facility costs at the maximum rates of $1.50 for residential development and $0.25 for
commercial/industrial development. Since then, fees have increased every other year in
January, and are currently being collected at the maximum rate of $2.14 per square foot
for residential development. and $0.34 per square foot for commercial/industrial
development. With the passage of the School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB50), the rules for
levying additional fees in excess of AB2926 developer fees have changed. In effect,
SB50 suspends local government's MiraJHartlMurrieta powers related to school facility
needs until the year 2006.
A local agency is required to consider the impact of legislative actions on school facilities
once a District has satisfied the nexus requirement of the effect of a particular project on
the District's ability to provide a high quality of educational services \vithin the
constraints of the existing facilities. The District should continue to work with the City
and County to ensure that the District's ability to furnish adequate school facilities will
not be adversely impacted by growth. Accordingly, a copy of this Plan should be
provided to these local agencies and the District should continue to notifY the City and
County on the impact of proposed development projects.
Commercial and Industrial Stirling fees levied pursuant to Government Code Section
65995 continue to be justified for the Dublin Unified School District.' As determined in
the Commercial/Industrial Fee Justification addendum to this Needs Analysis, these fees
offset only a portion of the cost of new school facilities and will continue to be needed to
provide additional school facilities for enrollments generated by employees from new
commercial and industrial businesses.
No other funding sources for new school facilities for enrollments generated by new
development are available.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By ShillS Consultants, Ene
-25-
5f it)' g 7
VII. LEVEL 3 FEE ELIGillILITY
A. Level 3 Fees
If state school construction funding becomes unavailable due to a lack of state school
construction bonds, school districts would be eligible to levy fees pursuant to
Government Code Section 65995.7 at twice the currently justified amount for Level 2
fees. Currently, these Level 3 fees for residential construction in the District would be as
shown below.
It should be noted that if the District levies Level 3 fees and later receives any state
funding, any amounts collected in excess of Level 2 fees either would have to be
refunded to the property owners from whom it was collected or deducted from any future
funding allocations made by the State. If such reimbursement were to occur, the District
could deduct from the reimbursable amount its expenditures for interim housing for
students from new residential development.
Table 13 - Level 3 Fees,
Cost and Fee Categories
Amount
Allowable Cost per Elementary Student
Allowable Cost per Middle School Student
Allowable Cost per High School
$38,384
$52,840
$55,269
Allowable Level 3 Fees per square foot
of new single family residential units
$13.53
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-26-
9 ~')~1
VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION OF NEEDS ANALYSIS AND LEVEL
2 OR LEVEL 3 FEES
To levy Alternate fees, a school district must perform the following tasks:
1. Prepare a Needs Analysis as described by Chapter 407/98.
2. Final Needs Analysis must be made available for public review for a period of at
least 30 days.
3. Publish notice of hearing for the Needs Analysis and fee increase in a newspaper
. of general circulation at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
4. Mail a copy of the Needs Analysis at least 30 days prior to the hearing to any
party that has submitted a written request for such copies at least 45 days prior to
the hearing.
5. Provide a copy of the Needs Analysis to the local planning and land use agency(s)
for review and comment during the public review period.
6. The Governing Board must respond to any written comments received on the
Needs Analysis.
7. Conduct a public hearing after the 3D-day reviewperiod.
8. Pass a resolution adopting the Needs Analysis and Level 2 or Level 3 fee, as
applicable.
9. The fees take effect immediately upon adoption and are effective for a period of .
one year.
10. Annually prepare a new Needs Analysis that updates the required elements for the
Needs Analysis, including new yield factors from new homes, school costs,
capacities and other factors, and repeat the adoption process.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-27-
5~ 1)) ,~'7
/f)
IX.. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings herein, the Dublin Unified School District meets the requirements
for levying Level 2 fees and can justify a fee in the amount of $6.76 per square foot for
new residential single family (attached and detached) and new multi-family residential
construction. This fee should be established and levied on' new residential development,
with the exception of any residential development that has a mitigation agreement with
the District.
';"'.'..
..,..
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-28-
s~ ab 81
X. COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL FEE JUSTIFICATION
AN APPE~DIX TO THE SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
A. Summary
The Dublin Unified School District has been levying developer fees pursuant to
Government Code S~ction 65995 for residential and commercial/industrial development.
These fees are commonly known as Statutory fees, and the current maximum fees are
$2.14 per square foot for residential construction and $0.34 per square foot for
commercial/industrial construction.
B. Commercial/1ltdustrial Fees
. As commercial or industrial properties develop, new jobs are created. Many of the
people hired into these new jobs move into the community thereby increasing the need
for additional school facilities to serve their children. Consequently, commercial or
industrial development affects the District.
Shilts Consultants gathered data from the State of California Employment Development
Department, the California Department of Finance Census Bureau, the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the City of DublinPlanning Department. This data
indicated that, as of January 1, 1999, there were a total of 28,707 people living in the City
of Dublin, which includes 12,370 residents with employment status. Furthermore, there
are a total of 8,367 housing units (both single family and multi-family units) within the
City of Dublin yielding a ratio of 1.48 employees/housing unit. Data from the 1990 US
census found that 19% of the Dublin residents with employment status worked in Dublin.
Additionally, AB530, adopted in 1990, allows for use of employee generation figures
from a report produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDA G). The
SAND~G study determined the average number of employees per square foot of
commercial and industrial business space. The employee genera!ion factors are
summarized inTable 14 below. The SANDAG study shows that on the average there are
2.65 employees for each 1,000 square feet of commercial or industrial building area.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, lnc
;
-29-
E15 V:vSf,
Table 14 - EmPloyees per Square Foot of CommerciallIndustrial Floor Area
Type of Business
Square Feet
Per Employee
Banks
Commercial Offices
Community Shopping Centers
Corporate Offices
Industrial Business Parks
Industrial Parks
Lodging
Medical Offices
Neighborhood Shopping Centers
Retail self-storage
Research & Development
354
226
652
372
284
668
883
217
360
15541
329
Employees
per 1000
Square Feet
2.83
4.43
1.53
2.68
3.52
1.50
1.13
4.61
2.78
0.06
3.04
Overall Average
377
2.65
Source: SANDAG Traffic Generator Study
C. CommerciallIndustrial Fee;Justificatioll
Using the SANDAG study average of 2.65 employees/l,OOO square feet of new
commercial or industrial space, assuming that 19% of these employees reside in the City
of Dublin, and an average of 1.48 employees live in each home, this study finds an
average of 0.34 homes will be needed for each new employee per 1,000 square feet of
commercial/industrial space3. Likewise, 2,936 square feet of new commercial/industrial
space would, on average, create the need for one additional home in the Dublin area for
new employees of that business.
Therefore, the total cost of school facilities needed per 2,936 square feet of commercial
or industrial space is the same as the K-12 new school facilities cost per home of from
Table 12. However, SB50 Level 2 fees provide an average of $1(883 per new home
3 (2.65* 19%).;- 1.48
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-30-
!SwO'bfJ 1
($6.76/square feet * 2,200 square feet) and the state school constniction program should
provide a nearly equal amount. Therefore, the total potential capital revenue for site
development and school construction is $13,669. The unfunded cost of school facilities
is the difference between the actual cost of school construction and amounts available
from the state and developers, or per new home.
Therefore, the unfunded impact of commercial or industrial development is $3.11 per
square foot ($9,124 +2,936). In comparison, the maximum commercial/industrial fee for
K-12 facilities is $0.34 per square foot, which covers only 11 % of the unfunded impact.
As a result, commercial/industrial fees are justified and are needed to ensure tha~
adequate school facilities can be made available for enrollments generated by new
residential construction.
In addition to the following justification, a percentage of employees for a new business
will move into existing housing in the ~ommunity. Given that employees typically have
more children than the families or people they replace in existing housing,
commercial/industrial development also creates enrollment gromh in the existing
housing stock. Commercial/industria.! fees are also justified to offset this impact.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-31-
. 5-:7 on ~ 7'.
Table 15 - Impact of CommerciallIndustrial Development
Square Feet
Employees Creating Unfunded Unfunded
per 1000 Need for One Impact Impact per
Type of Business Square Feet 1 New Home 2 per Home 3 Square Feet 4
Banks 2.83 2,750 $9,124 $3.32
Commercial Offices 4.43 1,756 $9,124 $5.20
Community Shopping Centers 1.53 5,086 $9,124 $1.79
Corporate Offices 2.68 2,903 $9,124 $3.14
Industrial Business Parks 3.52 2,211 $9,124 $4.13
Industrial Parks 1.50 5,187 $9,124 $1.76
Lodging 1.13 6,886 $9,124 $1.33
Medical Offices 4.61 1,688 $9,124 $5.41
Neighborhood Shopping Centers 2.78 2,799 $9,124 $3.26
Research & Development 3.04 2,560 $9,124 $3.56
... _.._--~.
Overall Average 2.65 2,936 $9,124 $3.11
.
Notes:
Employee generation factors from SANDAG Study. .
2
This is the square feet of commercial or industrial building area that generates the. need for one new
home in the District. Calculated: (1/(2.65* 19%)) * 1000 SF * 1.48
Unfunded impact equals tot~I impact per home, less Level 2 develo~er fees of $6.76 per square foot
* average home size ofi,200 square feet plus assumed equal state funding.
Unfunded impact per square foot equals unfunded impact per home divided by square feet of
commercial/industrial building area that creates the need for one new home in the District.
4
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
By Shilts Consultants, Inc
-32-
6~ 00"81
D. Conclusions
Commercial/industrial" Statutory fees levied pursuant to Government Code Section
65995 continue to be justified for the District. As detern1ined, these fees offset only a
portion of the cost or new school racilities and will continue to be needed to provide
additional school facilities for enrollments generated by employees from new
commercial and industrial businesses. Therefore, the District should make the findings
necessary'to continue levying commercial/industrial fees at the rate of $0.34 per square
foot.
Dublin Unified School District
School Facility Needs Analysis, August 2002
. By Shilts Consultants, lnc
-33-
.'DUBLIN SCHOOLSs~~81
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TO:
Board of Trustees
FROM:
Gene Turner
DATE:
October 9, 2002
RE:
Resolution No. 2002/03-07, Intention to Adopt a School Facility Needs Analysis and
Approve the Levy of School Mitigation Fees
,
BACKGROUND:
In November 1998 California voters passed Proposition 1A and authorized the sale of $9.2 billion of bonds
designated for public schools. This program allocated $2.9 billion to all qualifying school districts in a 50/50
state-local match program towards new school construction.
The remaining 50% of the cost is attributed to new residential development by way of a School Facility Needs
Analysis - a report that quantifies the impact of new residential development and justifies the appropriate
developer fee. This new fee, referred to as a Level 2 fee, may exceed the Level 1 developer fees (currently
set at $2.14). The School Facility Needs Analysis must include the following components:
1. Determines eligible school capacity.
2. Projects residential developm~nt over the next 5 years.
3. Determines Student Generation Rates from homes constructed over the
previous 5 years.
4. Utilizing the results of point's 2 and 3 to project enrollment growth over the next
5 years. .~.-
5. Evaluates school expansion or unused space.
6. Considers alternative revenue sources.
7. Calculates and justifies Level 2 fees.
In the event that no state school bonds are available to apportion, school district may levy a Level 3 fee equal
to 100% of school construction, site acquisition, and development costs. However, authority of school districts
to levy Level 3 fees has been suspended through at least March 2004, pending the outcome of Proposition 47
in November 2002. If the school facilities bond election is successful, authority to levy Level 3 feeE? will
continue to be suspended indefinitely. Should the bond election fall, Level 3 fees will be authorized after
March 2004 only if new construction funds are not available and bonds for districts that qualify for Critically
Overcrowded School funding are also not available.
FINANCIAL:
Increase future revenues in the Developer Fee Fund - 25.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2002/03-07, Intention to Adopt a School Facility Needs Analysis and Approve the Levy
of School Mitigation Fees as presented.
. Dgg2
"DUBLIN SCHOOLS
. . .lfO 00 <gJ
DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 2002/03-07
INTENTION TO ADOPT A SCH.OOL FAClUTY NEEDS ANALYSIS AND
APPROVE THE LEVY OF SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES
FOR THE DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLVED by the Governing Board (the "Board") of the Dublin Unified School District (th'e "District"),
County of Alameda, State of California, that: .
WHEREAS, this Board has had a School Facility Needs Analysis prepared as outlined in Section 65995 of
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, said Needs Analysis outlines the shortfall in revenues without levying fees as 9uthorized in
Sections 65995.5 and 65995.6 of the Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows:
1. The Board hereby receives and approves the School Facility Needs Analysis dated August, 2002 as prepared by SCI.
2. Based upon said Needs Analysis, the Board makes the following findings:
a. The purpose of the fees is to provide adequate school facilities for the students of the District who will be
generated by residential development and commercial/industrial development in the District. .
b. The fees are to be used to finance construction of school facilities as identified in the District's Facilities Master
Plan. :
c. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the fees, the use of the fees, and the development
projects on which the fees are imposed. f .'
d. There is a reasonable relationship betWeen the amount. of the fees and the cost of the facilities attri~utable to the
development projects on which the fees are imposed. .~ . .
3. The District meets the requirements, (b)(3)(C)(i) and (b)(3)(D) of Government Code Section 65995.5.
4. The Board hereby finds and determines it necessity to levy the fees authorized in Sections 65995.5 and ~5995.6 of the
Government Code in the amount of $6.76 per square foot of new residential development and $0.34 per square foot of
new commercial and industrial development.
5. The imposition of the fees shall take effect immediately.
q. The Superintendent or designee shall notify the City of Dublin and the County having jurisdiction over territory within
the District and requesting that no building permits be issued on or after this date without certification frqm the District
that the fees specified herein have been paid. .!
7. October 9,2002 at 8:00 p.m., in the regular meeting place of this Board, Board ~oom, 7471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin,
California, be, and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and place when and Where this Board will
conduct a public hearing on the subject of the imposition of said fees.
8. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to cause notice of said public hearing to be given bypublicatior') one time in a
newspaper of general oirculation in the area of the District. The publication of said notice shall be completed at least
thirty days before the date herein set for said hearing. '
APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2002.
4
o
1
o
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
C er of the Board~f Trustees
Dub~in Unified[ScHool District
[
County of Alameda
St~te of California
ANNUAL. REV-JEW
. OF
DE~LOPMENr AGREEMENTS
iJJ/ i~~'1
.. .',: ~ ., ,
~);:;hi;\;~i; ,.1
Dublin Ranoh A-H
Dublin.Ranch Phase I
General Motors
Koll Dublin Corporate
. Center
HBR'Supply & Invest
. Micro Dental
Tassajara'Meadows II
MiSsion Peak
Toll Bros. Project
GHC Investments LLC,
Tract 7075
Tass, Creek, phase I
SPCA
\ Dublin Ranch
Supp Areas F, G, H
chaefer Heights
Sybase Project
WDS DublinLLC
Emerald GleI?-
Vili.age Center - Shea LLC
Commerce One
GRC Invesi:ri:lents LLC
Tract 7279 Tassajara Creek
IT
Signed June 29,
1999
Signed June 4, 1999 July 14, 1999 Aug. 15; 2000
Signed June 29, ,July 8,1999 Aug. 15,2000
1999
Signed June 2, 1999 June 8, 1999 Aug, 15,2000
Last party slgnedJune 8, 1999 Aug. 15, 2000
June 4, 1999
Signed June 2, 1999 June 8, 1999 Aug. 15, 2000
Signed June 4, 1999 September 23, 1999 Aug. 15,2000
Signed March 26,
2001
August 7, 2000
April1B, 2000
\ Decem.ber 31, 1998
(THIS IS 30 DAYS AFTER
ADOPTION OF ORD, .
Signed August 7,
2000
November 8, 2000
Noyember 7, 2001
August 21, 2001
April 9, 2001
Aug. 15,2000
, Yes, Areas
A-l,tlu't)u!;,h
A-7 .
8 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs
5 YI:'s
yes
April 22, 2002
~ug. 15,2000
Aug. 15,2000
5 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs .
8 yrs
5 yrs
5 yrs
;:; yrs
Assigned to
the County
,.\
Aug. 15,2QOO
5 yrs
. Effective Date: If it says "signed'~ then the effective date is the date the DA is signed by the City.
Wrioro Dental effective date is'date all three parties have signed.
ToU Area A, neighborhoods A6 and A7 effective date approved by City'
G:planninl!lcorresoo/GA YLENElda schedule
OS/23/02 - .
January 27,1999
September 12,2000
Aug. 15,2001
December 7, 2001
August 15
November 9, 2001
August 15
November 9, 2001
August 15
Tecbnioaf Appendix 3
: ,
ANNUAL REVlEW
OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
/.p;r ~ "31
santa Rita Commercial Assigned. to
Center (Tri/Valley -- Opus
Southwest
Crossings I Homart
California Creekside JulY 15, 1996 ' July 15, 1996 - June 1 5 years
Date Recorded
\ Hansen Ranch March 26, 1992 March 26, 1992 March 26 8 years
Date Recorded
OpUS (Creekside \V1ay 13, 1997 May 13, 1997 W.l.aIch 15 10 years Assigned to
BusinessParkt) Dgl.te Recorded Opus
Southwest
Villas at Santa Rita October 16, 1997 October 16, 1997 AugtJ.-st 15 5 years
Date Recorded
Summerglen Effective date is date July 17, 1998 August 15 5 years Assigned to
DA signed by City, S\q~ OaSH?
Jefferson at Dublin June 25, 1998 July 17, 1998 August 15' 5 years Assigned to
Jefferson
(County) Effective date is date
DA si ed'bv Ci
Emerald Pointe October 1, 1998 October 15, 1998 August 15 5 years Partial
aseigllment to
(County) Effective date is date Opus
DA 8i ed b City.
Casterson Property January 5, 1999 January 12, 1~99 5 years Assigned to
Mission ?t:a1::
Tassajara Meadows I Effective date is date Homes
DA 8i ed b Ci
"
G:planningloorrespo/GA YLENB/da schedule
OS/23/02
~Y
ANNUAL REV1EW
OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
LQ3-cv g 1
Toll, Dublin Ranch between 7 /15
Area A I and 8/15 each
Neig:hborhoods A6 & A 7 ear
~.
Toll, PueaA \ Date ~igned betvleen 7/15 and 5 years
Nei hborhoous A-l 8/15 each ear
Toll - Dublin Ranch I' Date signed August 15 5yearll
w I optional
Area G each year . =l9ion up
Neighborhood H-l to. to years
Toll - Dublin Ranch Date signed August i5 ' S years
w j optional
Area G each year extension up
Neighborhood B-2 to 10 years
Toll - Dublin Ranch Date signed August 15 <; years
wi o'Ptional
Area G each year extcnsfun up
Nei hborhood MH-l to 10 years
Toll - Dublin Ranch Date signed August 15 5 years
w I optional
Area G each year =ension Ul'
Neighborhood lv1H-2 to 10 yeW's
.\
1
r
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
Effective Date: liit says "signed" then the ~ffective d.ate is the date the DA is signed by the City.
Micro Dental effective date is date all three 'Oarties have siQJled.
Toll Area A, neighborhoods A6and A7 eff;ctive date app;oved by city
G:planningicorrespolGA '{LENE/da schedule
03/27102
J
~
IIIBII ~~
_ 0AS1BlS0N
_ CO_eel
~" DUBUN RAUCH PHASE 1
EMERAlDGtmil4lOU.BROTllEllS
EME!WlIGtmWlAGE
GMMOIIAI.I.
)I/l)/ffl'mwlEl<l'rodj
JEFFERSONATIllJSUN
KOlL
UtlF.w!lYMI
.. ~~-p~ . CITY OF DUBLIN
IIElI &\NTARIT~IAlCl!N1Bl'
IIiIIII :::lARlTABUS>lESS""" DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
_ -- MAP DATE: NOVEMBER 15,2002
... _lll.fI< .
_ sva<ss ..,.
~ TASSAJARAMEM)OWSI~MISSlONpt,&J{ 0 600 1200 2400
_ lRiVMJE(SP(:6. ~CA1.E:1"=800'
C:=J 'If.I!Itlrrtf.i/Jl'mI/~IEl<I'''}
_ GREENBRM.~GHClWES"IlAerrS1ftACT7279
leY'
(} (j,
..7'~--:,. C, i
1
ALTERNATIVES TABLE
1. No Change Alternative. The CityG
could decide not to amend the EDSP and General
Amendment does not mandate increasing the
space available for these uses.
Creates a category for Places of Assembly and
describes the City's needs and constraints.
Provisions and action program would direct future
applicants and Staff's review of future projects.
This alternative would provide direction to staff
and to applicants when reviewing future projects
as to appropriate locations for Places of Assembly
and it would create some incentives for the
development of Places of Assembly.
Definition could include criteria for parcel sizes, use
types, appropriate locations, and other features. Could
encourage development of Places of Assembly on
appropriate commercial, residential or mixed use land
in conjunction with other development. Standards
could be amended for height limits, shared parking,
etc. for the project and/or for adjoining commercial
land under the same ownership.
2. Add Places of Assembly. The City Council
could amend the EDSP to define Places of
Assembly and describe their qualities. The City
Council could approve a policy encouraging
Places of Assembly in buffer areas between
residential and commercial districts, in
commercial districts and in mixed-use districts.
Although PSPF land could still be used for
public and private schools, the amendment
could impact the City's ability to provide
future school sites.
Could make 81.6 acres ofland available for PSPF
use including Places of Assembly. Surplus School
land would continue to serve a public need. Such
a re-designation would not be affected by the
requirements of development agreements.
The EDSP currently provides 132: 1 acres for School
development and the DUSD has issued a Facilities
Plan which indicated that there may be an excess of
81.6 acres of School land in the EDSP area.
3. Re-Designate School Sites. City Council
could amend the EDSP to provide policies so that
a School site has an underlying Public/Semi-
Public Facilities land use, if it is determined to be
unnecessary for use by DUSD. This alternative
could clarify the Schools designation in regards
to private schools.
May take more time to implement and greater
environmental review. Some lands in the
EDSP area are subject to development
agreements that vest the right to develop
consistent with the existing EDSP land use
designations for the duration of the
agreements.
The advantage of this alternative is that the land
available to Places Of Assembly would increase
Land subject to development a
be subject to amendment once
agreement
greements would
development
lapses.
City Council could approve a resolution to undertake
a comprehensive review of all land uses in Dublin and
to identify loc~ons where additional acreage should
be allotted to Places of Assembly uses, based on
project unit count.
4. City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment.
The City Council could increase the acreage of
land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities
at appropriate locations in the EDSP and General
Plan with a City-initiated General Plan
Amendment.
May take more time to implement and greater
environmental review. Unless an amendment
application is received from the property
owner no Places of Assembly sites will be
created.
Technical Appendix 4
The land available to Places of Assembly would
increase. The restrictions in development
agreements would not apply.
Staff would review applications for Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendments for provision of Places of
Assembly sites based on a criteria to be approved by
City Council, based on project unit count.
5. Developer-Initiated Land Use Map
Amendment. Establish policy to provide for
increased acreage designated for Public/Semi-
Public Facilities use whenever a developer-
initiated EDSP and General Plan Amendment
application is submitted to the City.
/..QLOOO "6,
Technical Appendix 5, Places of Assembly Facility Types
Places of Assembly are private or private/public institutions, which are subject to City
Land use regulations. They share the following characteristics: local base; community-
serving activities; not-for-profit purpose; and accessibility to the public. Places of
Assembly uses are generally included in the land use designation of Public/Semi-Public
Facility.
Places of Assembly include:
1. Religious Institutions
2. Meeting Halls
3. Performing Arts Theatres
4. Community Centers
5. Service Organization Clubhouses
6. Other Assembly Uses, as determined appropriate by the Community Development
Director
Technical Appendix 5
LQllSQ '81
ACTION MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
TASK FORCE MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 15,2004
FROM 3:30p.m. - 5:00p.m.
PRESENT:
Members of Task Force:
Steve Murdock
Sam Wills
Claudia McCormick
Anita Carr
Janet Lockhart
Ted Fairfield
Marty Inderbitzen
Patrick Croak
Kevin Duggan
Heidi Cheema
Absent:
Morgan King
Milton Righetti
Brett Prentiss
Pastor Robert McCannlPatrick Goodwin
Sue Hagan
Nancy Feeley
Observer:
Shauna Brown
Staff:
Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director
Jeri Ram, Planning Manager
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary
Chairperson Cheema started the meeting by asking the Task Force Members to review
and approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Hearing no changes to the minutes,
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner, proceeded with the meeting.
Ms. Macdonald stated that based on the Task Force's input from the previous meeting,
Staff has modified the Policy to incorporate the issues discussed. Some of the changes
were, as follows below:
ATTACHMENT 3
tog Db '8'1
Introduction Section
1. Staff deleted the sentence relating to school designated land uses and changed
the word "inclusion" to "designation" for clarity. The introductory paragraph
in the draft Policy was modified accordingly.
Definition Section
2. In the Definitions section, the Task Force recommended including "and other
facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other community services" as
part of the definition. Staff modified the definition to include the above.
Ms. Macdonald reviewed the Policy for the benefit of the members and stated
that the introductory paragraph describes the intent of the Policy. The goals of
the Policy are described under the Purpose section. The Definitions section
greater specifies the intent, purpose and the uses ofthe Semi-Public Facility
land use category.
Applicability Section
3. Ms. Macdonald explained that that the Applicability section had been changed
by Staff to address Task Force concerns regarding the Policy's burden to some
of the smaller projects. Staff modified this section by capping the size of the
project.
Standards Section
4. Staff additionally modified the Standards section per Task Force concerns.
Staff removed the word "All" in the first bullet point since a cap to the size of
the residential development has been established. Due to the concerns that the
Task Force had regarding the burden that this Policy could place on
Development, Staff reduced the rate from 1.19 acre (net) per 1000 residents to
1 acre (net) per 1000 residents. Staff has further emphasized this point by
specifying the number of units or residents that a development would provide
based on the rate.
5. In addition, Staff included an additional Standard keeping in mind the City's
Inclusionary Ordinance. To provide flexibility for those projects that are
already providing large number of units as affordable, Staff has included a
standard with the option of exempting them from providing Semi-Public land.
Ms. Cheema stated that for the benefit ofthose who were not present in the previous
meeting, the Task Force should read through the Policy section by section. She asked if
anyone had any changes to the introduction section.
There was a discussion that there was some inconsistency with regards to the location of
the Semi-Public uses. Some members expressed that the location for such uses was
/pot 0b ~1
concentrated in the residential areas, whereas they should also be located in the
commercial areas of the City.
Mr. Inderbitzen pointed out that the issue being discussed was the inadequacy of semi-
public facilities and their location citywide. The City gets the opportunity to identify such
areas at the time of a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment. It should not matter at
that time whether it is for a Commercial use or a Residential use; if an opportunity for
identifying an area for Semi-Public use is available it should be utilized.
There was a lengthy discussion among the members to add or modify the Applicability
section prior to discussing the rest of the sections, so that there is a consistency in the
Policy to cover commercial development as well. The section was modified as follows:
This Policy shall be applicable to all General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments. This policy shall apply to residential amendments involving 150 or
more Single-Family Density housing units and/or 250 or more Medium Density or
greater density housing units, or increments and combinations thereof
Ms. Macdonald stated that Standards would be the next section to be discussed. Ms. Ram
stated that based on the input received, Staff would rearrange the bullet points so that the
issue relating to the residential developments would occur at the bottom of that section.
Some of the Task Force members indicated that the City Council should review the
relationship between non-residential development and Semi-Public uses. They stated that
with an increase in the growth of non-residential uses, there is a demand for semi-public
uses such as child care centers. Mr. Peabody explained that the issue involving fees and
the nexus between semi-public uses and non-residential development is beyond the scope
ofthis Task Force and is not part of City's General Plan. Hence Staff would not be able
to recommend this to the City Council. Ms. Ram stated that on the other hand the Policy
does provide guidelines for the City to ask for the provision of child care centers when
large Commercial developers approach the City.
Mayor Lockhart pointed out that the genesis for this Task Force was based on the
question that the Council had, "Are we providing enough child care facilities as we are
building residential and non-residential facilities in the City?" The goal of this policy is to
provide enough flexibility so that the City is able to make provisions for adequate
Public/Semi-Public Facilities for the community. The intent is not to provide a Semi-
Public Facilities at every corner of the City but to ensure that the City is able to meet the
needs as it develops.
Ms. Cheemaasked the members ifthey were comfortable with the first bullet point in the
Standards section. After a group discussion, members agreed that the addition of the
words "subject to this policy" after "New residential development" would be appropriate.
The bullet point would now read:
New residential development, subject to this Policy, shall strive to provide sites for
Semi-Public Facilities land uses at a rate of 1 acre (net) per 1000 residents. In practice,
---------
<<:,".,. .....,';"'~..d..",.
-'00b 87
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment applications shall strive to provide .5 acres
of land designated for Public/Semi-Public Facilities per 150 units of Single-Family
Density (9 - 6.0 units per acre) and/or .5 acres of land designated Public/Semi-Public
Facilities per 250 units of Medium Density or greater density (6.10r more units per acre),
or increments and combinations thereof
Ms. Cheema wanted to add a recqmmendation to the City Council to consider an in-lieu fee in
place of land dedication for such uses. Staff explained that a fee is not established through a
General Plan Amendment but through an Ordinance. Council members present stated that
previous experiences in establishing similar fees were not successful and hence this may not be a
suitable alternative.
Clarification was requested regarding the second bullet point. Ms. Cheema stated that she did not
see the connection between Semi-Public uses and affordable housing. Staff explained that the
City's Housing Element identified the need formore affordable housing and while drafting this
Policy Staff has given the flexibility to the developers to either provide affordable housing or to
provide semi-public facilities for the community so that there is equity. There was a lengthy
discussion on this issue. Staff suggested taking a vote to either keep this point or to take it out.
The majority of the members wanted to keep this point in the Policy and hence it wasn't removed.
It was agreed to change the word "may" in the third bullet point to "will" without underlining it.
It will now read:
"When reviewing the sufficiency of the sites proposed as part of an amendment
application pursuant to the Semi-Public Facility Policy, the City will consider the
following future modifications of design requirements for semi-public facility projects:
parking reductions; design modifications; use of nearby public facilities to meet over-
flow parking demand; partnering of semi-public facilities with City facilities where
feasible; and transfer of Semi-Public Facility land use sites to other locations in the City
of Dublin that meet the location criteria described below."
For the fourth bullet point Staff suggested a slight modification to it and the bullet point will now
read:
"Private Residential facilities to be used to satisfy this Policy may not be restricted to project
residents and employees. "
The final section that was discussed was the Location of Semi-Public Facility Sites. There was a
discussion regarding the exclusion of industrial areas from the list of potential sites for such uses.
Since the Task Force had concerns relating to exclusion of some areas, Staff suggested the
following modification:
"In considering the potential location of semi-public facilities, the City Council may
consider all locations in the City. In addition, it is encouraged that Semi-Public
Facilities be located at sites:
With adequate transportation and circulation systems that have the least conflict with
residential uses;
where shared parking might occur between complementary uses;
with open space and landscaping amenities;
locations with proJ(imity to City parks; and
~,A"
-1/ i5b Cd!
locations with proximity to schools.
That change concluded the final modifications of the Semi-Public Facilities Policy. City
Staffthanked everyone for serving on the Task Force and urged the members to attend
the February 3,2004 City Council meeting. Staff stated that a modified Policy with Task
Force recommendation would be mailed to all members prior to the City Council
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
-rz-Db ~1
ACTION MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
TASK FORCE MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 4, 2003
FROM 3:30p.m. - 5:00p.m.
PRESENT:
Members of Task Force:
Steve Murdock
Sam Wills
Claudia McCormick
Anita Carr
Janet Lockhart
Milton Righetti
Marty Inderbitzen
Patrick Croak
Absent:
Morgan King
Ted Fairfield
Brett Prentiss
Pastor Robert McCannlPatrick Goodwin
Sue Hagan
Kevin Duggan
Nancy Feeley
Heidi Cheema
Observers:
Shauna Brown
Bob Harris
Staff:
Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director
Chris Foss, Economic Development Director
J eri Ram, Planning Manager
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary
City Staff started the meeting by asking the Task Force Members to review and approve
the minutes of the previous meeting. Hearing no changes to the minutes, Pierce
Macdonald, Associated Planner, proceeded with the meeting.
Ms. Macdonald provided a brief staff presentation to apprise the Task Force of Staffs
progress since the last meeting. Ms. Macdonald began by explaining that Staff had
recognized that the issues of public and semi-public facilities were complex and open-
ended, so Staffhad decided to draft preliminary policies to focus discussion to specific
issues discussed in previous Task Force meetings. Staff drafted various policies and
presented them as a charrette to the various City departments for their input. After
73 OV ~1
incorporating the departments' input, the document was sent to the City Attorney to look
into the legal aspects of the different options. Finally, Staff reached agreement on the
two policies that best addressed the issues and concerns raised by the Task Force. She
stated that Staff would go into the details of the policies a little later in the meeting but
first Ms. Ram would summarize the goals of the meeting.
Ms. Ram stated that due to the broadness of the subject, Staff created two policies and
would like the Task Force to choose one and edit it for their recommendation to City
Council. When the Task Force was formed, the City Council asked Staffto return with a
six-month update and several projects are waiting for a decision on the issue. Vice
Mayor McCormick added that the City Council needed the Task Force's input on the
issue. Ms. Ram outlined the course of action to be taken at the meeting. The two draft
policies would be presented in detail by Staff, and Members would comment and discuss
possible edits after the presentation. Once the discussion was completed, the future
course of action would be decided regarding what needed more work and the date of next
meeting.
The following outline summarizes the discussion of the draft policies:
1. The two policies are a synthesis of the discussions held in previous Task Force
meetings.
2. The first section is a brief Introduction to the intentofthe policy, describing what
the policy intends to accomplish. It is modeled after the Public Art Policy.
3. Both policies have the same Purpose section, which states the goals ofthe Policy.
4. There is a need for a Definition section in the policies because it is important to
define certain specific terms that are referred to often. For example: Semi-Public,
Facilities and Transportation and Circulation Systems.
5. Applicability ofthe policy would be whenever an applicant submits an
application for a General Plan Amendment and/or a Specific Plan Amendment.
6. Procedures outlined in both the draft policies are the same:
a. Staff would work with Applicants.
b. Identification of Semi-Public Facilities land use sites would occur at an
early point in the plan review.
c. The City Council shall have final approval.
7. A Standards section has been included in Draft Policy 1. This is the only
difference between the two policies.
Mr. Murdock asked the reason behind having the words "shall strive" in the Standards
section, which sounded to him as if it was not a requirement. Ms. Ram responded that
when formulating policy documents, flexibility is built into the language. This is done so
that in a situation where the policy does not apply there is room for change.
Ms. Ram concluded that both policies encourage Public/Semi-Public Facilities land uses
with the only exception being that one is a little stronger and more detailed than the other.
Questions or concerns raised by Members were as follows:
f~D:6 ~1
1. Written comments from Task Force Chair Heidi Cheema and Task Force Member
Ted Fairfield were distributed to the group.
2. Vice Mayor McCormick sought clarification on the standard for 1.19 acres per
1,000 residents, and how Staff counts residents. Ms. Macdonald responded that
Staff s Amendment Study found that there is 1.19 acres of semi-public facilities.
per 1,000 residents in the City. In addition, the City's Specific Plan projects
population growth in a residential neighborhood based on the type of housing
unit. The Specific Plan projects 3.2 residents perunit in a single family home and
2 residents per unit in medium density and multi-family residential projects.
3. There was a discussion about the first point in the Standards section relating to
"strive to provide sites for Semi-Public Facilities land uses at a rate of 1.19 acres
per 1,000 residents, or fraction thereof." Some of the Members felt that the
acreage for dedication may be too high. Mr. Peabody reminded that the Standards
applied not to smaller projects or site but for larger projects, which involve a
General PIan Amendment or Specific Plan Amendment. Task Force members
discussed the relative size of 1.19 acres and decid~d it was approximately the size
of one gas station. Task Force members discussed different projects under City
. .
reVIew.
4. Mr. Inderbitzen had concerns that the policy would single out the Semi-Public use
by making it more important than parks, open space or other considerations. Staff
responded that it does not make them more important because there are existing
policy documents which deal with these issues. Mr. Inderbitzen asked if it woul<J.
be fair to say that this policy does not mandate any project to provide any or all of
these Semi-Public Facilities but to consider the Semi-Public use as part of the
overall amendment study. Mr. Peabody responded that it would be a fair
statement since the Policy states, "shall strive". Ms. Macdonald pointed out that
the Policy discusses semi-public uses in a similar manner to language used in the
Specific Plan to describe the provision of a Fire Station or similar uses needed by
the community.
5. Vice Mayor McCormick pointed out that having an area designated for a Semi-
Public use may be a benefit for a developer when the site is being studied for an
amendment. Ms. Ram pointed out that the Policy adds to the benefit by giving
the flexibility to work with the Developer at the time of the General Plan
Amendment to identify sites that work with the criteria stated in the Policy.
6. When the Members were asked ifthey agreed with the Intent of the Policy ("to
increase the opportunities for Semi-Public Facilities by increasing the locations
of lands designated.....), some of the members pointed out that ifthe ability to
provide such uses exists universally, the City may be restricting it through the
Policy. Ms. Ram responded that although the ability exists, through this Policy
the City is ensuring that certain sites provide such uses.
7. Mr. Inderbitzen asked the reasoning behind the inclusion of "all amendments,
including amendments to School-designated land uses... " in the Introduction
section of the Policy. Ms Ram responded that the City is trying to provide the
best information possible to the Applicants and hence its inclusion. But if the
Task Force feels that it doesn't need to be there, then it should be discussed. Mr.
Inderbitzen suggested that the sentence "including amendments to School-
1500~1
designated land uses" to be taken out. Ms. Ram responded that ifthe Task Force
agreed on it, it can be removed. All the members agreed to that, and Ms. Ram
indicated that the Policy would be changed accordingly.
8. Mr. Inderbitzen also asked that the word "inclusion" be replaced with the word
"designation". All the Members agreed to that change. The last sentence of the
Policy with that change would read:
....may be reviewedfor designation of Semi-Public Facilities lands according
to the guidelines below:
9. Ms. Brown commented that Standards are needed in the Policy, because ip her
experience when standards are not specified, there is the greater likelihood ofthat
use not happening at all.
10. Going through each section, Ms. Ram asked if the Members disagreed with the
Purpose of the Policy. All the Members were fine with this section.
11. In the Definitions section, Mr. Croak suggested revising the definition to sound
general and then list the uses as examples. Staff suggested including the language
from the introduction such as "other facilities that provide cultural, educational
or other community services. " Vice Mayor McCormick asked if recreational ball
fields would be included in this definition and Staff stated that they would not
because they were a commercial use in the Zoning Ordinance.
12. Task Force members discussed whether the policy would be appropriate to a 1-
acre amendment project. The Task Force agreed that the Applicability section of
the Policy needed work to include project size applicability.
13. Task Force members asked if the Policy should be directed to development in
Eastern Dublin not Central Dublin. Staff explained that there could be projects in
Central Dublin which could have significant population growth and those could
be subject to the policy.
14. Mr. Inderbitzen expressed a concern that the Policy included language about
future facilities. Staff explained that like the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the
Policy includes design guidelines for Semi-Public uses. The Policy is intended to
give direction to how the Semi-Public lands could be used and what regulations
could be modified by the City for the facilities.
15. There was a lengthy discussion on the Standards section and everyone agreed that
it needed more work. Ms. Ram indicated that in the next meeting Staff would
incorporate all the changes suggested by the Task Force. The discussion in the
next meeting should focus on the Standards section so that a decision can be made
to forward the Policy adopted by the Task Force to the City Council for
consideration.
Next meeting was scheduled for January 15, 2004 at 3:30 p.m.
7 La. ob'()l
ACTION MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
TASK FORCE MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 2003
FROM 3:30p.m. - 5:00p.m.
PRESENT:
Members of Task Force:
Steve Murdock
Ted Fairfield
Nancy Feeley
Kevin Duggan
Janet Lockhart
Heidi Cheema
Marty Inderbitzen
Patrick Croak
Sue Hagan
Absent:
Morgan King
Sam Wills
Brett Prentiss
Patrick Goodwin
Anita Carr
Claudia McCormick
Milton Righetti
Staff:
J eri Ram, Planning Manager
Melissa Morton, City Engineer
Julia Abdala, Housing Specialist
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary
Observers:
Shauna Brown
Pastor Robert McCann
Chairperson Cheema started the meeting by asking the Task Force Members to review
the minutes of the previous meeting, and asked if they wanted to add any issue that they
felt was left out. Hearing none, she proceeded with the meeting.
Prior to starting the brainstorming session on the different kinds of community groups
and organizations, Chair Cheema outlined the purpose of the Task Force and its goals to
Pastor McCann, who was attending the meeting for the first time. Everyone introduced
themselves to Pastor McCann. The Task Force Members came up with the following list
as part of an exercise to name groups or organizations that the Task Force Members
belong to and the services that the groups or organizations provide to the community:
"/"706 ~ 7
Task Force Members' Organizations and Services to the Community
1. Church/religious organizations
2. Service organizations
3. Chamber of Commerce
4. Soroptomists
5. Rotary
6. Kiwanis
7. Tea clubs
8. Toastmasters
9. Dublin Historical Preservation Association
10. Dublin Sister City
11. Dublin Fine Arts Council
12. Women's Club of Dublin
13. Team sporting clubs
14. Trade/business organizations
15. Child care/pre-schoollschool-age
16. YMCA/YWCA
17. Community theater/theatre schools
18. Private schools
19. Cooperatives/farmer's markets
20. Special needs programs
21. Valley Care Medical Center
22. Hospices
23. School support organizations
24. Teen centers/youth centers
25. Political organizations
26. Animal rescue organizations
27. Non-profit organizations
28. Interest clubs
29. Scouting
30. Goodwill/rehabilitation centers
31. Services for deaf/blind
32. Food kitchens/emergency shelters
33. Senior organizations
34. Assisted living centers
35. Cultural centers/ESL/cricket fields
36. Cemeteries
As part of the second exercise Members were asked to consider the groups, services
and organization that they would like to see if 1,000 new residents moved into
Dublin. For background, Ms. Macdonald explained that Vice Chair Duggan
suggested that Staff should present the demographics information for the City. City
Staff presented demographic information from the 2000 census, which illustrated a
diversity of ages and backgrounds of current residents. There was a discussion on
why the example of 1,000 residents was used in the exercise. The members
suggested that based on the demographics, teen centers may be one of the uses that
'7B Db ~l
can be considered for that area. Child care centers and churches were other suggested
uses that can be considered for the area. There was a discussion that there are groups
with different religious denominations that are looking for spaces to locate their
religious organization. Mr. Fairfield talked about financing and the example of a land
acquisition he was involved with for a religious institution whereby the landowner
sold the site at less than market value and was able to claim a deduction.
In addition to a religious institution and a youth center, there was a discussion and
general agreement between the Task Force Members that there is an increased
demand for facilities from groups who have recently immigrated to the country.
While considering a semi-public use, one should keep in mind the diversity of the
population and the need for diverse uses. These additional groups or services were
also added to the list.
Ms. Ram reviewed the definition of Semi-Public Facility for the benefit of everyone.
The definition includes "institutions, churches, theatres, community centers, and
hospitals." She stated that the definition is an old one, which could be modified by the
Task Force. There was a discussion that the definition did not include a lot of uses
discussed by the group. Ms. Ram stated that the Task Force Members needed to
reflect on what has been discussed and then come up with a working definition for
Semi-Public Facility.
Ms. Brown indicated that while reviewing semi-public use in the.newer areas of
Dublin, a thought should be given to the fact that Dublin's demographics could be
changing. Based on informal discussions with realtors, Ms. Brown said that new
residents to Dublin may be more diverse in age and background than the current
populations. This could change the types of facilities that the new residents will
reqUIre.
Mr. Ted Fairfield suggested that Staff categorize the list of uses that the Task Force
developed in the brainstorming session, in terms of their location and current zoning.
Ms. Ram stated that it was a good point and should be included for discussion in the
next agenda. Additionally, she also stated that the Task Force Members should also
discuss how the uses fit into the current definition of Semi-Public.
Mr. Inderbitzen suggested that while categorizing the uses, one should bear in mind
the nature of the use in terms of permanent or long-term, temporary or short-term,
which would determine the nature of the facility needed. Mayor Lockhart suggested
that along with the nature of the use, the nature of the facility should also be
determined, for example, if the facility is a dedicated facility or a multi-used facility.
There was a discussion regarding interweaving different uses at one facility for
making these uses affordable, for example, using a religious institution as a child care
center or a school during the week.
Ie; ob '81
A visual exercise was conducted with the help of a map to give an idea to the Task
Force Members as to how much land would be needed to provide residences for
1,000 residents. There was a discussion regarding the transportation infrastructure for
the uses and the demand for services and Semi-Public Facilities for the residents.
There was a general consensus among the Members that the Task Force needs to look
at the existing uses in the community and then assess future needs, work on the
definition including the uses discussed, look at financing of semi-public uses, and
prepare a matrix listing the different uses.
Next meeting was scheduled for October 2, 2003 at 3:30.
80 OO~I
ACTION MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
TASK FORCE MEETING HELD ON JULY 24, 2003
FROM 3:30p.m. - 5:00p.m.
PRESENT:
Staff
Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director
J eri Ram, Planning Manager
Melissa Morton, City Engineer
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary
Members of Task Force:
Steve Murdock
Ted Fairfield
Nancy Feeley
Kevin Duggan
Claudia McCormick
Janet Lockhart
Anita Carr
Heidi Cheema
Marty Inderbitzen
Patrick Croak
Milton Righetti
Sue Hagan
Absent:
Morgan King
Sam Wills
Brett Prentiss
Patrick Goodwin
Observer:
Shauna Brown
Mr. Peabody started the meeting by inviting everyone to re-introduce themselves for the
benefit of those who were absent at the last meeting.
Following issues were discussed during the meeting:
1. Nominations were made for electing a Chairperson.
2. On a suggestion from Vice Mayor McCormick, nominations for Vice
Chairperson were also made.
81 ~ ~7
3. On a motion from Mayor Lockhart and seconded by Steve Murdoch, Heidi
Cheema was unanimously elected as the Chairperson and Kevin Duggan was
elected as the Vice Chairperson.
4. Ms. Ram briefly gave an overview of the Study and the research Staff
conducted. She informed the group that there were no recognized standards
for semi-public facilities. Unlike public facilities, they are not govemment-
funded groups. Staff found that the ratio for the semi-public facilities in the
City of Dublin's primary planning area, west of Dougherty Road, was 1.19
acres per thousand residents.
5. In order to maintain this ratio, new development in Dublin would require
32.24 acres ofland to serve 34,018 new residents in the eastern Dublin area.
6. Ms. Ram informed the members on the statistics Staff used as a basis for
maintaining the ratio for new developments.
7. Ms. Ram stated that except for Chula Vista, no city in California has adopted
a standard for semi-public facilities. Ms. Ram indicated that Chula Vista has
a ratio of 1.39 acres semi-public per one thousand residents.
8. Ms. Ram explained that the Study concluded with the observation that having
semi-public facilities was a community issue and the community needs to
decide whether it needs such facilities or not.
9. A map was provided to the members identifying the semi-public facilities in
the Tri-Valley area.
10. Some members pointed out that the map did not identify child care facilities
and Ms. Macdonald explained that the child care facilities were grouped under
Schools. There was a discussion on the accuracy ofthe map. Staff stated that
the map would be corrected.
11. Mr. Peabody discussed with the members the number of semi-public facilities
located in the Tri-Valley area in answer to a question from a member from the
previous meeting.
12. Ms. Ram briefly explained the process and regulations for locating such
facilities in Dublin, including Conditional Use Permits and Planned
Developments.
13. After explaining the study and answering some of the questions raised in the
previous meeting, Ms. Ram pointed out that the Task Force, as representatives
of the community, needs to decide if Dublin needs more semi-public facilities.
14. Some of the questions that were raised were:
a. Is Staff aware of any organization that shares its premises with other
organizations for a similar use?
b. Is Staff aware of any semi-public organization that is willing to share its
space with another semi-public organization with a different use? (For
example Church vs. School)
c. Can one property, approved for a particular use, be used as a meeting hall
for different uses?
d. While making a recommendation to the council will the Task Force
stipulate what the use would be?
e. Are there any plans for community centers in the eastern Dublin area?
gZDO\ ~1
'0
f. Once the need for a semi-public use is determined, how would the City
address the funding for that use?
g. Is the issue to find an area for these semi-public uses or is the issue to find
funding for these uses or both?
h. Can land be zoned to make these uses affordable?
1. Are reduced parking standards for Churches a way to make land
affordable?
J. Can a list of all semi-public uses be made and eliminate the uses that the
task force feels are not required and keep the uses that are required for the
community and then discuss its feasibility?
15. A discussion took place regarding adopting a policy citywide so as to provide
incentives for the property owners in exchange for using their land for semi-
public uses.
16. Mr. Peabody summarized the discussion:
a. Yes, everyone agrees there is a need for semi-public facilities.
b. Moving to the next step, discuss the alternatives presented in the report
and begin to discuss questions raised by members.
17. Mr. Peabody outlined the items for discussion in the next meeting:
a. Discuss alternatives.
b. Constraints for the location.
c. Incentives for the developers.
The next meeting was scheduled for August 21 st at 3:30 p.m.
G:\P A#\2002\02-017 Public Semi Public\Task Force\Minutes\Minutes for 7-24 TaskForce meeting.doc
2>3 Db ~1
ACTION MINUTES FOR THE PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
TASK FORCE MEETING HELD ON JUNE 25, 2003
FROM 3:00p.m. - 4:00p.m.
PRESENT:
Staff
Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director
Jeri Ram, Planning Manager
Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner
Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary
Members of Task Force:
Steve Murdock
Ted Fairfield
Sam Wills
Kevin Duggan
Claudia McCormick
Janet Lockhart
Anita Carr
Heidi Cheema
Marty Inderbitzen
Patrick Croak
Milton Righetti
Absent:
Morgan King
Nancy Feeley
Sue Hagan
Brett Prentiss
Patrick Goodwin
Observer:
Shauna Brown
Mr. Peabody started the meeting by introducing himself and St(;lff and noted the purpose
of the meeting. Members of the Task Force were also asked introduce themselves.
Mr. Peabody gave a brief summary on the purpose of the Task Force. While defining
Public/Semi-Public Facilities to the members, Mr. Peabody described the Task Force's
role including the review of Staffs Amendment Study, duration of the task force and
conducting monthly meetings. He stated that the Council asked Staff for an update
within 6 months.
Ms. Macdonald talked about team building issues and the following ground rules were
set:
'3~ 9J ~1
1. Meetings to start on time.
2. Meetings to end on time
3. Members to receive information prior to meeting
4. Cell phones should be switched off during the meeting
5. Action minutes will be taken and will be forwarded to members
Following issues were discussed during the meeting:
1. Election of a Chairperson to facilitate meetings and act as a 'referee' during
meetings.
2. Ms. Ram gave a brief background and overview ofthe Study.
3. Mr. Peabody discussed Task Force goals and key issues that the Task Force
would be focusing on, such as examining the need for public/semi-public
facilities, constraints, examining methods of satisfying need within
constraints, where should the future sites be located, how can the City
encourage these uses, who should pay for these sites, etc.
4. Mr. Duggan asked if the Council's direction was based on Staff
, recommendation. Ms. Ram responded that five alternatives were
recommended to the Council and one of them was the formation of the Task
Force, which would address Council's concern regarding the lack of'
community input on the matter. Mayor Lockhart stated that the Council was
acting on an assumption that the Public/Semi-Public facilities were needed in
East Dublin, but the community input was lacking; hence, the Council
decision to seek community's feedback.
5. Mr. Fairfield noted that prior to focusing on solutions, attention should be
given to defining the problem. There was a discussion to first identify a need
for such facilities.
6. Mr. Inderbitzen wanted to know ifthe scope of the task force was limited to
identifying sites in Eastern Dublin. Mr. Peabody answered that it was not
limited to Eastern Dublin, but since west Dublin is nearly built out the
emphasis is on the east.
7. Mr. Inderbitzen also pointed out that the Task Force needs to distinguish
between the Public and Semi-Public uses since the issues for providing
locations for Public facilities are different than Semi-Public ones. The Task
Force first needs to identify which uses are within its purview.
8. Mr. Righetti agreed with Mr. Inderbitzen. It is important to recognize that
some organizations do not receive funding. Public facilities are funded by the
City and they are the responsibility of everyone in the community. He stated
that ifhe liked a semi-public organization, he would support it. Semi-Public
uses are more individual.
9. Ms. Brown from Child Care Links stated that Semi-Public uses are equally
important to the community as the Public uses. The Semi-Public organizations
are not financially strong and hence should receive City support.
10. Mr. Fairfield suggested going through the Zoning Ordinance to identify areas
allowing such uses.
~S-un 81
11. Mr. Duggan stated that there might be some existing semi-public uses on the
other side of the freeway that serve Dublin and the Task Force should look at
this issue.
12. Mayor Lockhart thanked the members for their time and hoped that the Task
Force could find a solution beneficial to the community.
13. Everyone agreed to meet on the last Thursday of every month at 3:30p.m.
14. Agenda and minutes would be sent electronically to everyone.
The next meeting was scheduled for July 24th at 3:30 p.m.
G:\P A#\2002\02-0l7 Public Semi Public\Task Force\Minutes\Minutes for 6-25 Task Force meeting.doc
-,
-
:~~,;:; ,
,(~:';,~
"
.Figur~ 1-1a.is t~e General Plan Land Use Map. In the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan GPAthe map was
refern:,d to as Figure 28 . The Eastern Extended Planning Area Land Use Map was combined with the Prima
Planning Area Land Use and Circulation Map to create the General Plan Land Use Map, Figure 1-1a. ry
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1
~1OV~1
Industrial Park (.35 Maximum Floor Area Ratio. See text below for exceptions).
This designation accommodates a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses. Uses anticipated within this
designation include, but are not limited to the following: manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication, research
and development, printing, warehouse and distribution, wholesale and heavy commercial uses, provided the
activities do not have significant external effects in the form of noise, dust, glare, or odor. Uses requiring outdoor
storage and. service yards are permitted in this designation as long as they do not have adverse effects on
surrounding uses. Residential uses are not permitted within this designation. Warehousing uses may go as high as
0.50 FAR at the discretion of the City Council.
Industrial Park/Campus Office.
Combined land use district.
.......
s:::
Il)
.g
s:::
!
~
0::
Public / Semi-Public I Open Space
Public / Semi-Public Facilities. (.50 Maximum Floor Area Ratio).
This designation identifies areas where governmental or institutional type uses are anticipated. Such uses include
public buildings such as schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post
offices; fire stations; and utilities. Semi-public uses such as churches, theaters, community centers, and hospitals
are also permitted in this designation. Parks are not included under this designation. The designation generally
applies to parcels of land owned by a public entity or governmental agency.
0-1
c<:l
l-<
Il)
s:::
Il)
o
Il)
0-1
..0
.-
CI.l
CI.l
o
~
l-<
<.2
s:::
o
.-
.......
'S
t.;:i
Il)
Q
Parks / Public Recreation.
Publicly-owned parks and recreation facilities.
Open Space. .
Open space lands are those areas shown as open space on the land use map (Figure 1-1 a) and other areas
dedicated to the City as open space on subdivision maps. The intent of this designation is to ensure the protection of
those areas with special significance such as areas with slopes over 30 percent; stream and drainageway protection
corridors; woodlands; and visually-sensitive ridgelands. The City may allow only open space uses on this land.
Equestrian, riding, and hiking trails will be encouraged. Other types of recreational uses, agriculture and grazing may
be permitted where appropriate.
Western Extended Planning Area (west of Primary Planning Area - See Figure 1-1a)
Residential
Residential: Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 unit per 100 gross residential acres).
Accommodates agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed management,
consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification includes privately held lands, as well as
public ownerships not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks, Open Space, or Public/Semi-public uses.
Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.
Residential: Estate (0.01 - 0.8 units per gross residential acre).
Typical ranchettes and estate homes are within this density range. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.
Residential: Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre).
See description under Primary Planning Area.
t'
!
~
.A~:;.:
t
~,;
~!
Page 10
~
S
"1:l
a3
~
~
~
~
l-;
Q)
a3
Cj
Q)
.........
on
.....
(/)
(/)
o
P-<
l-;
r.S
$:1
o
.....
.....
'S
ti=:
Q)
o
~LO OC> ~1
hour traffic generation, meet a specific housing need, encourage pedestrian access to employment and shopping,
or create an attractive, socially-interactive neighborhood environment), residential uses may be permitted as part of
a masterplanned mixed-use development. In such developments, the residential component would not be permitted I".
to occupy more than 50% of the developed area.
Business Park/Industrial (FAR: .30 to AD; employee density: 360-490 square feet per employee).
Uses are non-retail businesses (research, limited manufacturing and distribution activities, and administrative
offices) that do not involve heavy trucking or gel)erate nuisances due to emissions, noise, or open uses. Residential
uses are not permitted. Maximum attainable ratios of floor area to site area (FAR) are controlled by parking and
landscaping requirements and typically result in .35 to .40 FAR's. Examples: Clark Avenue, Sierra Court.
I
I
~
I
I,
I
~t
I
;':':
~1~
t
~
I
t~;
I
;'#i~
!;t;:;
.
1#
I
i
!
'!b..;:A
~~\
i
~
~:1f;'
I~.;....;.,
:$
,~
'i?:"
E!t:~
"I.",
,i".'
,-~
,(ti.
Business Park/Industrial: Outdoor Storage (FAR: .25 to AO; employee density: 360-490 square feet per
employee) ,
In addition to the Business Park/Industrial uses described above, this classification includes retail and
manufacturing activities conducted outdoors such as mobile home or construction materials storage. Example:
Scarlett Court.
Combination classification: Medium-High Density Residential and Retail/Office
(see Section 2.2.5 of Land Use and Circulation Chapter)
Public/Semi-Public/Open Space
Public/Semi-Public (FAR: .50; employee density: 590 square feet per employee)
Uses other than parks owned by a public agency that are of sufficient size to warramtdifferentiation from adjoining
uses are labeled. Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as semi-public shall be
considered consistent with the General Plan. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific
semi-public site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Unit Development
proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. Examples: Public and private schools, churches, Civic Center.
Parks/Public Recreation.
Publicly owned parks and recreation facilities.
Open Space.
Included are areas dedicated as open space on subdivision maps, slopes greater than 30 percent, stream
protection corridors, woodlands, and grazing lands.
Eastern Extended P/annina Area (East of Cam" Parks -- See Fiaure 1-1a)*
Residential. Residential designations for the Single Family, Medium Density, and Medium-High Density categories in the
Primary Planning Area are applicable in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The following additional residential
designations have been developed to respond specifically to conditions in the Eastern Extended Planning Area.
Residential: Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 unit per 100 gross residential acres).
Accommodates agricultural activities and other op~n space uses, such as range and watershed management,
consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification includes privately held lands, as well as
public ownerships not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks, Open Space, or Public/Semi-public uses.
'Figure 1-1a is the General Plan Land Use Map. In the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan GPAthe map was
referred to as Figure "2B". The Eastern Extended Planning Area Land Use Map was combined with the Primary
Planning Area Land Use and Circulation Map to create the General Plan Land Use Map, Figure 1-1a.
Page 8
ATTACHMENT -4
l"".,
g
S
"0
P
~
a
E::
ca
BJ
~
c.?
o
...-
,D
.-
tI)
tI)
o
p.,
I-<
t.S
p
o
.-
.....
's
to
o
o
~1~'b1
Industrial Park (.35 Maximum Floor Area Ratio. See text below for exceptions).
This designation accommodates a wide variety of minimum-impact, light industrial uses. Uses anticipated within this
designation include, but are not limited to the following: manufacturing, processing, assembly, fabrication, research
and development, printing, warehouse and distribution, wholesale and heavy commercial uses, provided the
activities do not have significant external effects in the form of noise, dust, glare, or odor. Uses requiring outdoor
storage andservice yards are permitted in this designation as long as they do not have adverse effects on
surrounding uses. Residential uses are not permitted within this designation. Warehousing uses may go as high as
0.50 FAR at the discretion of the City Council.
Industrial Park/Campus Office.
Combined land use district.
Public / Semi-Public I Open Space
Public I Semi-Public Facilities. (.50 Maximum Floor Area Ratio).
This designation identifies areas where governmental or institutional type uses are anticipated. Such uses include
public buildings such as schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post
offices; fire stations; and utilities. Semi-public uses such as churches, theaters, community centers, and hospitals
are also permitted in this designation. Parks are not included under this designation. The designation generally
applies to parcels of land owned by a public entity or governmental agency.
Parks I Public Recreation.
Publicly-owned parks and recreation facilities.
Open Space.
Open space lands are those areas shown as open space on the land use map (Figure 1-1 a) and other areas
dedicated to the City as open space on subdivision maps. The intent of this designation is to ensure the protection of
those areas with special significance such as areas with slopes over 30 percent; stream and drainageway protection
corridors; woodlands; and visually-sensitive ridgelands. The City may allow only open space uses on this land.
Equestrian, riding, and hiking trails will be encouraged. Other types of recreational uses, agriculture and grazing may
be permitted where appropriate.
Western Extended Planning Area (west of Primary Planning Area - See Figure 1-1a)
Residential
Residential: Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 unit per 100 gross residential acres).
Accommodates agricultural activities and other open space uses, such as range and watershed management,
consistent with the site conditions and plan policies. This classification includes privately held lands, as well as
public ownerships not otherwise designated in the plan for Parks, Open Space, or Public/Semi-public uses.
Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.
Residential: Estate (0.01 - 0.8 units per gross residential acre).
Typical ranchettes and estate homes are within this density range. Assumed household size is 3.2 persons per unit.
Residential: Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre).
See description under Primary Planning Area.
Page 10