HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 PublicFacilitiesFee (2)
.:'.-,
I'.f
...... I~.: ....~ _.A
.. ... -:;!: ",
CITY CLERK
File #
.'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 26,1998
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: P1.lblicFaciHties Fee. Report
Prepared by: Diane Lowarlt P~& .Co1JlP:lUn!ty Services Director
-::;.........~~..__ ._ -.,j I ...':
"',"',,"
A. March 12, 1996 City Council Agenda Statement (no exhibits)
B. February 13. 1996 City Council Agenda Statement (no exhibits)
C. Resolution Establishing A Public Facitlties Fee For Future
Developments Within The City Of Dublin, incllJding the
following exhibits:
EXlDBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit A: lAnd Use Map
---- Exhibit Do' " Public Faciltties Fee .Justification Study prepared
by Recht Hausrath& AS$ociales (March, 1995)
Exhibit Co' Fie Schedule ....
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 1)
(to be available at Council meeting) 2)
3)
~ 4)
5)
6)
General Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific PI~ "
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
LibraryPISnning TaskForce Rewrt
Civic Center Programming Document
RECOMMENDATION.;..., . /1.
.. fJ-;. 1'\(1"
I. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff presentation and, public wstimony ,
3. Question Staff and the public .. '
3., Close Public Hearing and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Establishing Public Facilities Fee
Cost of facilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
DESCRIPTION On February 13. 1996. the City Council opened". Public Heating to
consider adoption of a public facilities fee (Exhibit A). Based on comments that were'received, the City
Council continued the Public,:HeariI1g to March 12, 1996 in Qrder to arrange It'meeting with the
development community to adequately address their comments and concerns. . .' .'
On March 12. 1996. the Public Hearing was again continued. in"Qrderto address additional comments that
were received during the public 'testimony portion . of the 'Public Hearing. Specifically. the Council
directed Staff to look at the following issues:
.-----------~--~--------------------------------~-~~--~----~~~----
~ COPIES TO:
. . .. ITEMNo.M
F:/pubfacfelce312ph.doc
,'. .. 1) How:to acconunodate 4evelopercoDStl'Uction of parks and community facilities;
. 2)1be':~ual;"v,iewprQCeSSforthe fee; . .. .
3) The difference betwm1 the amount of park land designated m the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Speoific Plan area and the amount of park land needed to serve new
development. ..... . '. ;. ., . ';.
Develq,. ~+b o(ll'adltlpl.
It bas been ~~ 'that the portion of the fee' rel~ted to park improvements could be redUC*d if the .
facilities ~., CODSUacttd'.by ,devel...(DeVel~,have estimated the reduction at 20%.to 4QO.4.)
The implementinS-~~ '.fw :~:public, facilities fee',{DUblin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78)
conteinplates"cteditS. for: developer coristruetionof publW, AtCilitieB.;aaff has,proposed that this wiUbe
~:d~the:ckWelQpm$1t oftheadmitJistndive guideUnes. ' , ' /'. .
-". ;
":lJt h-
\\{1';/", :.,
........,""~J.J
.. ~ . '.'.
i,,~\.. ...
" ,
. ,
, ' r i \ ., - ,
'.14;0. to~:tJmtthisi_kadeqtu\tely ~ the resoluti~ establishing a public facilities fee'
(Exhibit C) ~..&ett reVised' to WOludttbe' folIo .. .' taDguage:
..; :: . '. .'. W1DJ.
, , - - . ,
.. , ,
10. ' .. Athn~~ye flqidelines.
.",' ': ~~~ .:,:. ',_. ':' " '.
, ,
, . ,'TheC~tl;~ dIlL \)yre$()ltJtiQr1,~ e4tliinistrative guideliDesto provide p~edures for
calqulaiion, .~ent" ~or '~.' ~ent'8nd'other admiDistrativeaspects ofth.e Fee. Sladl
~:i," ,.:.... ,;>amcrelines -shailincbi~ptooed~l'fot ~Pl-' of~~tMF8Cilities by developers. .'
, ,
DeveloJ>D;1ent of adininistrative gUidelines will begin immediately following the adoption:of~ p\1blio
facilities fee and will take &JPrpxbateW~$Onthsi ,Itiorder to insure that tbedeveloper's CQncernsare "
~)'~,: Staff~"'to involve the 4evelopers in the discussions related to the.
development of the S4lninistrativeguideJines. ' . '\ " " '" "
. \ . . ' .
~,Auld,:Rpi" . ':',
The, Pttb1ic ~MiUtibsP~eJustificatio;nStudy reconunett4sthatthe City undertak~ annual and l()naer..~, '
(perhap$:ii~,~CtWS;oftbepublic faqilities'"t'ee ,program. The annwll review. requiredbYlaw.'WiIl',,',: ",:;;c;i,
verify that the:QsranPfi. 01"1 Which ~tees are':baSed remain generally applicable attdlriU ..ti~{::'.:'::::r'"
adjustments for"infl:atWn. ," The'"kmger4~reviews"!will 8llciw for detailed re-exat11inati(jlt;;:of,jlI1::',;,'>;r:~;:;:':;t;
", ~Ul1iPtiQ11S',_h. ..Wtli',to~;::dewlopin\k1t -<is, facilities needs, annexation policies" ~J1, '" .:,",'~.' .,:\'
" ,., and"land 'cOSft'$tiB.rovieWi'WUlhelp attune long.riu1ge public'r.iIities financing to the City's changing',
need$. ,','" ;" , '
, ,
". i,' Bob'-~:';~,~~,a~e J~fer tin Property in Eastern Dublin. has requested tba.t~:~;II:'<:::' ,,'
cotnpre~~ew"oftbe ,fee witbinotlO:yeat (sJInUar to the longer-tennreviewas-d9cribt;d Jbo~)~ '. -'. .'
Specificall}';';,~,~, ~ ,that tb.e,,' CiiY;i~:"~~s~~:parkland;,tlu1t::.identifie<lOll,I""~fi\,:" ,
Linpro~~d(~thoauno~:otpatk~~bo~~.;,' '" ,":".<:,'Ji;;"""" '
i> ;.; ,,'
StaffwoUld:Concut'wltfdhe:tequest,fijr:a::~~v.;rcview;Witl.u~n.:~. In addition to looking at . ",
the amount of p~k land:on;tbe Lin ;ProPerty,;$tidfwoUkl ilSo,reCOinmend that the size of the comm~ "" ""
.: facilities and librarie$ "be teVie\ved, as "well 1$" the proj<<tIollS used for land eosts~ "If it is de~ that, "
park~izesshould be, 'n:cJ~ or that #Ie standards" for cOmmunity facilities andlibrariesshotild 'be
~odiftedf tile City CouncU would ri.eed 'to, amettdtheclocuments whichestatili$hed,the standards"lUidth :'!.' " ,,' ",'
.additiott,it may be necessary to p~s an~.~lwthl1oenend::Planand specific Plan. ":,' "1\,, ,',i";;;
, ; 't~ , -:~; ~
A"mf)lQj~ of Park Land
In May of 1993. the City Council adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan. Prior to adoption, the City Council analyzed the environmental im~acts of a proposed project and
~ur (4) alternatives, each i1l~~ diff~nt densities. ~ City Council adopte~ Altemativ~ 2,,~hich
"'cluded development only Within the City's sphere' of int1~ce. and, resulted 1D' a reduction m the
number of housmg units and the anticipated population from the proposed project. Alternative 2 did not
quantify the exact acreage of park land required for Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed project.
Staff has prepared,the following table which compares the population and park acreage from the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (as adopted) to the population and park acreage from
the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study.
--.......-~,~-_'II',
PQRUlatlon
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
Total Park Acreage
Eastern Dublin
GPA
32,510
183
~
258.5
Public Facilities Fee "
Justification StUdy
32,510
113.9
~
162.4
Difference
o
69.1
2Z
96.1
From this table, it appears that there are approximately 96. i acres of "excess" park land in the Eastern
Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan area, but it is important to keep in mind that some of this land is
needed to remedy the City's existing deficiency of 3.31 acres. Also. additional land in Eastern Dublin
may be needed if in the future the City chooses to replace the 36 acres of school parks in the existing City.
The following table identifies the total amount of park land that would be needed in Eastern Dublin to
meet the new development demand and to remedy existing deficiencies.
.ommunity Parks
Neighborhood Parks
Total Park Acreage
PUblic Facilities Fee
Justlflcatlo~ Study
113.9
~
162.4
existing Deficiency
3.31
Q
3.31
Replace"
School Parks
36
Q
36
Total Parks
',Eastern Dublin
153.21
d5.
201.71
Of this amount. new development would be charged for 162.4 acres and the remaining 39.31 acres would
be funded from sources- other than exactiol1$ imposed on new development. . This could include General
Fund revenues or other sources dedicated to capital improvements.
As discussed in the previous section. Staff would recommend that utilization of the excess park acreage
requirements be reviewed as part of a comprebensive review of the fee wi~ the next year.
Conclusion
In order for'new develQpment in Eastern Dublin to proceed.Q.,pplic~ts are required to demonstrate that
prQposed developments are in conformance with the Eastern publin Specific plan policies and land use
pro~ and the City of Dublin General Plan. With regards to parks and colllUltmity facilities, each
development proposal must demonstrate confonnance with the following goals and policies:
. New development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of inftasttucture needed to serve
the area, and should fund the costs of mitigating adverse project impacts on the City's existing
infrastructure and services. (SP Goal, Financing)
. The fiscal impact of new residential development in the extended planning .area must support itself
and not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the. City. (GP Policy 2.1.4 C)
· Ensure that park development in Eastern Dublin is consistent with the standards. and ~~l;';',t
recommendodin the City ofDuhlin's ReereatiOll a,Jd,Parks Master Plan, and provides a full range of
recreationahietivitits from~BctiVe; ~tO,pas8ive open spaee enjoyment (Sp,PoIicy .....28)
· BncoUl'alC tlldsupportthee1fertsdortheAWneda;'~tyLibrary8Ystem ~ e~Iish'a,fi~(ie~) '."
and associated services for:BNtet:n, Dublin as. determined to be apJ)loprla1e gIven tbO_.and. .
popuIatiettOf'the planning 8ra'(SP' PaltCY8-11) , . . ., ;, :.'"........ ..' :
· Fund thcftJU'~ of the on-site an4'otf-sitepllbHc "infrastructure and public serviCes ~,ip. '
support devel",'jn tho Specifk\Plan area.from revenues sen4lftted by developm.~rt1UJ<J~'.~~,
Specific Plan area.(sp.P<*y 10.1) : ,..' '., '......'
· RoquiredCdicatiOD',oflud1for road itUptovements,park sndQtber public faei1iti~ andtonstruCtf()B'()f'
suchin)prd~~istent with City;.widepGlici~. (SP f'8fcY'1tj:7) ~ ,'Ii"
I ;.' .\ \ ~
As s40wn in'&BUtent,Dubun~PkmArriendment and SpteU1cPlan, the Parks ami Rec~cm "
Muter.. ftan,.,~' other related Studies, 'tbture devel~~ent in' the City of Dublin and in '~'~lfn .
wiU'~erate:theJlC*lfor tt..&cUities~~the S\i,bject of the PubUcFacilities Fee JustitlC8fio.n~y.
ProVlSlon ofthese.f8cUitia is ctitiealto theimpl~entation of the g()als and policies CODtain~in"
documeDts.' 1(1Jd~I~fi~'~J!'tiM P not~dedfor~i~m in BastemDublin those newMd~mU
plA~M~'bwden .9Jlmq~,~pub1W;~JcA~~ti~AltaQUitie~; '. '", .
00v~t~tection()S913~2'~the'Opunciltoconsidet:the effect of a resolution'$u"haS: this
With~.:ththoUsmsneeds'ofthe,l~in -Which ~ CitY is located. This resolution'is'one 'step.lli
the irJ1p~n of'ihe'~'rMbJin:S~ifie Plei1~ch contemPlates close to 13~906i:dwenu1g ,
unitsathWldovt;Wbich"Will.have abendlcittl,effedonthe h6U$ingneeds ofthertgion. .
\.;;.;':,.: 'irjl. . ,. " .
\""Adoption ofthoPUbJi~'i~tie$>F.i$~stent with ~ General Plan and'the EastemDubli,nSpecific
Plan andwiJl~lelO.flit~ose pJalJS. The P8rb~ CQmmWlity Services COmnUssion has reviewed. and
approvedth~ ",Pu&Ho. ~ities:~I. in eoncept " 'FtletefG~; "Staff recb~endsthat the City Council
conduct the public hearing aud'ad<>pt the~lution establishin,gapublic facilities fee. . .'. ',' '
I , " . "
".'
. -.'
, ~':
~, '~'
,.'
., ,~ .
t',
- '"
" ,
. ' l ~ ,.' -:,
,,{ :'
"
, ":,-
(,
"~. '~' " :"; ',..-
: .:1 ,~ I ,
";.
..,1, '.:
'i. .
, :'-,
,.'
;', ,
.1,<" i
"...',:-
., '.l: ~
... .
.
CITY CLERK
File # D~[2J[Q]-[g][Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 12, 1996
SUBJECT:
~~ITS ATTACHED:
I
...:.'
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Public Facilities Fee. Report
Prepared by: Diane wwart,-Pm:ks &- Community Services Director
A. February 13. 1996 City Council Agenda Statement (no exhibits)
B. Summary of Meeting Comments
C. Correspondence from Mackay & Somps
D. Correspondence from Ruggeri Jensen and Associates
E. Correspondence from Kaufman & Broad
F. Correspondence from Trumark Homes
G. Summary of Responses to Correspondence
H. Resolution Establishing A Public Facilities Fee F.or Future
Developments Within The City Of Dublin, including the
following exhibits:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit Bo'
Land Use Map
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study prepared
by Recht Hausrath & Associates (March, 1995)
Fee Schedule
Exhibit Co'
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: 1)
(to be available at Council meeting) 2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
RECOMMEND.A.TION:
.. .~,
~
~,
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
General Plan
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Library Planning Task Force Report
Civic Center Programming Document
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff presentation and public testimony
3. Question Staff and the public
3. Close Public Hearing and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Establishing Public Facilities Fee
Cost offacilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million
DESCRIPTION On February 13, 1996, the City Council opened a Public Hearing to
consider adoption of a public facilities fee (Exhibit A). Based on comments that were received. the City
Council continued the Public Hearing in order to arrange a meeting with the development community to
~equately address their comments and concerns.
..,----------------------------------------------------~------------
:__;~...' COPIES TO:
F:/pu bfacfe/cc312ph.doc
EXHIBIT A
ITEM NO.
" ,
As directed, Staff met with representatives of the development community to further discus's the:ii
concerns related to the imposition of the public facilities fee. Representative~ of the principal landowners
in Eastern Dublin were in attendance at the meeting as well as representatives from the proposed Schaefer
Ranch development project and the Building Industry Association (BrA). A summary of the concerns.'.'.'
discussed at the meeting as well as Staff s response to the concerns are attached in Exhibit B. :-
Correspondence that was received related to the Public Facilities Fee is attached in Exhibits C - F and "
Exhibit G contains a summary of the responses to the correspondence.
In light of the concerns expressed by the development community to the Public Facilities Fee, Staff has
prepared the following information for the City Council's consideration.
Consistency With Planning Documents
i(Providing for tlte recreation needs of tlte Eastern Dublin community is as important to establislting
and maintaining a Itigh quality of life as are the residential, commercial and employment policies set
'.;, fortlt in tltis plan. Recreation is essential to the development of a balanced, lfealthy living
environment. Providing recreational facilities and opportunities within Eastern Dubltn will enltance
the character and image of the area and enhance the quality of life for future residents." (Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, Page 32)
UThe parks system is an essential component of a city's image. It is a visible reflection of community
pride. To create a community witlt landscaped pathways, well-designed parks, and attractive public
buildings requires careful long-range planning and guidelines. By planning for a iivillage green" in
the urban area where workers enjoy their lund, or parkways along wltich commuters can walk and
bicycle, Dublin is creating a community not a suburb. The Dublin population can then derive
pleasure from community amenities each day. The park system becomes an integral part of their
lives." (parks and Recreation Master Plan, Page 35)
~e parks and community facilities which ar~ the subje~t of the Public Fac~lities ~ee Justification. Study e',,::
WlIl enhance the character and nnage of the CIty of Dub 1m, enhance the qualIty of lIfe for future resIdents, ,:.
and enhance the marketability of the area to future businesses and residents. The proposed facilities are
consistent with the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan and other related studies. Provision of these facilities is critical to the implementation of the
goals and policies contained in these documents.
Burden on Existing Facilities
iiThefuture development of Eastern Dublin represents both an opportunity and a challenge. An area
more than twice the size of the existing city with tlte potential to more than double tlte current
population, Eastern Dublin requires careful planning to ensure tlte development of a healtlty. ~high
quality community that relates well to its setting and the existing city. With a community of this Isize,
it is essential that all aspects of community life be incorporated so tit at the planning area can he as
self-sufficient and self-sustaining as possible, and not be a drain on tlte rest llf tlte city or adjOiring
communities." (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Page 23)
The current park and community facilities within the City of Dublin are reaching maximum c;:apacity. In
order that new development not place a burden on existing facilities it is essential to provide' adequate
park and community facilities to serve the new residents. For example, the Dublin Sports Grounos, which
is the City's only major sports complex. is utilized 100% of the available hours by Dublin Little League
and Dublin United Soccer League. These programs are designed for Dublin youth only and will be unable
to absorb the additional youth associated with the foreseen growth. The Dublin Swim Center is also
unable to absorb the needs that will result from additional residents. The Center is programmed at it's
maximum potential during the sUmmer months and often times patrons have to be turned away from swim
lessons and recreational swimming due to lack of space. Selected recreational programs at the Shannon .
Community Center too have reached their limits and cannot be expanded to meet the anticipated growth . ::,
unless additional facilities are provided in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area.
lace a
..P'urpOs~ of Public Facilities Fee
"Given tlte lack of City funding, responsibility to provide capital improvements falls to tlte developer.
In general, developers provide items like streets, sewers, and parks in order to make Itabitable tlte
It 0 uses that they will build and selL Developers typically front the cost of the infrastructure and then
include these costs in the price of the homes sold. J1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Page 147)
-.
The purpose of the public facilities fee is to fmance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts
caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin. The Public Facilities Fee
Justification Study documents the amoWlt and cost of new public facilities for city services required to
serve new development and detennines the public facilities fees that new development should pay to fund
its fair share of those facilities needs. -~ ---:=-.- ~ --
re~ follp'~g table identifies the facilities needed to serve new development as well as the cost to fund
those facIlItles.
48.5 acres
Land ($25,969,000)
Improvements ($15,263,000)
Land ($14,550,000)
Improvements ($7,682,000)
$41,232,000
Community Parks
I
Neighborhood Parks
113.9 acres
$22,232,000
Community Buildings
60,200 s.f.
$12,060,000
Aquatic Center
$2.100,000
6,380 s.f.
Improvements ($4,939,000)
Volumes ($1,838,000)
Improvements ($370,000)
Parking lot ($75,000)
$6.777,000
Libraries
25,200 s.f.
Civic Center
$445,000
TOTAL
$84,846,000
Amount of Fee
The total amoWlt of the public facilities fee varies according to land use type. Citywide fees per
residential unit are $5,331 (6 or fewer dwelling units per acre) and $3.332 (6.1 or more dwelling units per
acre). Eastern Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center
which bring the fees to $7,735 to $4,834 for the respective unit types. Commercial/industrial facilities
fees per 1.000 square feet range from $387 for industrial to $877 for office space. Commercial
development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a small portion of the proposed aquatic center. bringing
the range of i.ti':i.pacts for this part of the City to $392 to $889 per 1,000 square feet for
commercial/industrial uses.
, .
Probably the largest component of the public facilities fee is the estimated cost to acquire park land which
'amoWlts to 48% of the fee. For those property owners who have sufficient park land on their property to
dedicate in accordance with the law. the total out of pocket fee paid to the City (excluding dedicated land)
would be $4.029 per unit for land designated at 0-6 units per acre. and $2.518 per unit for land designated
at 6.1 units and above per acre. However. not all park land can be acquired through dedication. The fee
must be calculated so that sufficient monies are collected to purchase the land which cannot be acquired
.Jill dedication. The cost of park land purchased by the City will depend on the Wlderlying or adjacent
~ning of each site acquired. For the most part, park acreage is located in or adjacent to medium density
. ,... or, mediwn high density residential zones. The corresponding land value is estimated in the range or
$250.000 to $350,000 per acre for this level of development. An estimated average land value of
$300,000 per acre is applied to neighborhood park acquisitionS.
. .
. .
Two of the three community parks locations are adjacent to medium and medium~high residential zones;
however the community park in the northerly area is in a rural residential zone. and is likely to have a land
value lower than parks in the other parts of the planning area. Rural residential land currently has a value
of about $12.000 per acre. Averaging the land values results in an assumed per acre cost of.$228,000 fore.'
community park acquisitions. These hi~h land values are the result of eeneral plan and ~ectfic plan land
use desi~ations other than agricultural for the bulk of the Eastern Dublin area.
The park land component of the public facilities fee could be lowered if landowners entered into
agreements with the City to allow the City to acquire the park land at lower land values that these
estimated values. For example in the City of Brentwood the park land fee is based on land valued at
$50,000 per acre. If this amount was used for park land acquisition in niibliD."the' fee for land designated
at 0~6 units per acre would be reduced from $7,735 to $4,688 per unit, and for land designated at 6.1 units
apd above per acre it would reduce the fee from $4,835 to $2,918 per unit.
~I '.
The public facilities fee also takes into account that the City will construct the parks and community
facilities. The portion of the fee related to park improvements could be further reduced if the facilities
were constructed by developers. Developers have estimated the reduction at 20% to 40%. For example.
the net total fee if the City permitted developers to construct parks only would range from $7,317-$6,898
per unit for land designated 0-6 units per acre, and $4.573-$4.311 per unit for land designated 6.1 units
and above per acre depending upon the amount of savings realized through developer construction. The
implementing ordinance for the public facilities fee (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78) contemplates
credits for developer construction of public facilities. This will be addressed during the development of
the administrative guidelines.
Fee Comparison
.:
It has been suggested that the development fees in Dublin are excessive and are not competitive with the
neighboring communities. Staffs response is that Dublin needs to provide adequate parks and community
facilities in order to remain competitive with the neighboring communities.
In looking at the total amount of development fees assessed to Dew development in Dublin, it should be
noted that there are a number of fees which the City has no control over (school fees. sewer and water
fees, etc.). Should the park and community facilities be reduced, resulting in a lower public facilities fee.
in order to make the total amount of development fees more palatable? l
II
Staff attempted to prepare a comparison of development fees in neighboring communities but foimd that it
~s like comparing "apples to oranges". . No two communities use the sam: m.etho~ of fund~g
infrastructure and the total costs vary accordmg to the level of development occumng m the COlnmumty.
Many communities use a combination of fees, assessment districts. Mello-Roos speci~ taxes and
development agreements to fund infrastructure. . ,
Based on the fee comparison done by Kaufman & Broad (Exhibit D) the fees for parks and community ,
facilities range from a low of $2,336 per single family dwelling unit in Livermore to a high of $6,959 per
single family dwelling unit in Pleasanton. However. these fees are not representative of the total cost to
developers for parks and community facilities. Staff has found that many communities condition
development for park and community facilities in excess of the "Quimby Act" requirements. For .:-
example. developers in the Dougherty Valley were conditioned through a development agreement to
provide improved parks at a standard of 6.5 acres per 1000. In addition, the developers must cons1n.Jct an
11,600 s.f. library, a 24,000 s.f. community center, a 10,000 s.f. senior center. a police substation and a
corporation yard. A public facilities fee of $1,410 per unit will be assessed on development in the
Dougherty Valley. It is apparent that the cost per unit offtmding parks and public facilities in Dougherty
. V alley '~ll be higher than Eastern Dublin given the above requirements. Developers in the Sycamore
Valley area of Danville were conditioned to participate in an area wide assessment district which included
the construction of major roadway improvements along Camino Tassajara, a new fire station and a
.'.... substantial portion of the development costs for Sycamore Valley Community Park and Tassajara Park.
. Tbis funding was far in excess of normal Quimby Act requirements normally required ~fthe projects.
Given that the Dougherty Valley is one of the main competitors for residential development to Eastern
Dublin.. Staff believes that the proposed Dublin Public Facilities Impact Fee is competitive with similar
areas undertakin~ infrastructure for IDC!.jor growth.
~ _~~_7-_~ ~- . j I i
Conch:l,Sion
l1;1,conc~usion. the purpose of the public facilities fee is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the
impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin. As shown in the
Easternl'Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
other related studies, future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the
I
need for the facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study.
The Public Facilities Fee Justification Study establishes the following:
. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the impacts of the types
of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of
Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential - will generate persons who live,
work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the
. facilities;
- .'. . That there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use (to pay for the construction of the
facilities) and the type of development for which the fee is charged in that all development in the City
of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin ~ both residential and non-residential - generates or contributes to the
need for the facilities;
. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or
portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin in that the fee
is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses,
the total amount it will cost to construct the facilities. and the percentage by which development
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the facilities;
. That the cost estimates set forth in the study and master plan are reasonable cost estimates for
constructing.1he facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not
exceed the projected costs of constructing the facilities;
· The method of allocation of the fee to a particular development bears a fair and reasonable
relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from, the facilities to be funded by the fee,
in that the fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees each particular
development will generate.
It should be noted that the adoption of a public facilities fee which is applicable to properties within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will not preclude developers from picking and choosing from the
various financing options available to them. Developers are required to prepare Financing Plans which
,,-e to be part of the Development Agreement. The Financing Plan is the vehicle for a developer to
::-: '~ropose the "mix" of financing options available to him so that the property is not overburdened with
assessments and/or special taxes. Fox example, a developer could propose that the City establish an
assessment district to generate the money for the public facilities fee. The City would receive the money
up front and the developer (and future owners) would pay the annual assessments.
Following adoption of the public facilities fee, administrative guidelines will be prepared which will assist
Staff in implementing the Public Facilities Fee Program. These guidelines will address issues such as the
imposition of fees on mixed use development projects. the use of fee credits, and the relationship between ..:
the fee's land use categories and the City's zoning designations. The administrative guidelines will also _ :
address financial. accounting. and compliance issues such as integration with the City's capital ,-
improvement program. The administrative guidelines will be brought before the City Council for
adoption at a later date.
Further. it is recommended that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of
the public facilities fee program. The annual review. requir-ed by.law,will-verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation. The longer-
term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as growth forecasts,
development trends, facilities needs. annexation policies, inflation. and land costs. Such reviews will help
attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing needs. ....
Government Code section 65913.2 requires the Council to consider the effect of a resolution such as this
with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. This resolution is one step in
the implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13.906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
Adoption of the public facilities fee is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and will implement those plans. The Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed
and approved the Public Facilities Fee in concept. Therefore. Staff recommends that the City Council
conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution establishing a public facilities fee.
e.,
.:.
::.......::
, "
CITY CLERK
File # rn~[Q]-[2J[OJ
"\ ':,
e.
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 13,1996
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Public Facilities Fee
Report Prepared by~,"_Diane.f.rovart, .Parlq; & Community Services
Director
,.,~~BITS ATTACHED:
I
Resolution Establishing A Public Facilities Fee For Future
Developments Within The City Of Dublin, including the following
exhibits:
qv.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Land Use Map
Public Facilities Fee Justification Study prepared by
Recht Hausrath & Associates (December 20, 1995)
Fee Schedule
Exhibit C:
-.. ."
BACKGROUND DOCUM:ENTS: 1) General Plan
(to be available at Council meeting) 2) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
3) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
4) Parks & Recreation Master Plan
5) Library Planning Task Force Report
6) Civic Center Programming Document
RECOMMENDATION: -" 1. Open Public Hearing
~' 2. Receive Staffpresentation and public testimony
3. Question Staff and the public
3. Close Public Hearing and deliberate
4. Adopt Resolution Establishing Public Facilities Fee
.'
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Cost offacilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million
.".
DESCRIPTION : The City Council adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78
creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public Facilities Fee. The pwpose of
the Public Facilities Fee is to finance municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future
developments in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin. Such facilities include the following:
completion of the Civic Center offic~ space; construction of a new library and expansion of the existing
library; relocation and expansion of the existing senior center; acquisition and construction of
neighborhood and community parks and community buildings (including a 'community theater. a
community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center).
~,-----------------------------------------------------------------
. "'-.',' COPIES TO:
EXHIBIT 8
F:/pu bfa c:felcc2 J3ph.d oc
ITEM NO.
BACKGROUND
The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Specific Plan (SP) were adopted by the
City in 1993. The GPA outlines future land uses for approximately 4176 acres within the City'''' _"
eastern sphere of influ~nce including ~pproxi;nately 13,906 dwelling units ~nd 9.737 mill.,".
square feet of commercIal, office. and mdustrIal development. The SP provIdes more specI _ .
detailed goals. policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GP A area
nearest to the City.
'. .
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the City in July of 1994. The Master Plan
provides direction for addressing the long-term recreational needs of the City and its changing
population through the next twenty years. The plan envisions a 330-acre park system at build-out
of the City based on a standard of 5 acres of park land per 1 aoo residents, -. In order to accomplish
this goal the plan calls for the acquisition and development of an additional 258.5 acres of park
land within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment area. This includes a 56:1: acre City Park,
.ilD. 80:1: acre Sports Park, a 46:!: acre Community Park and approximately 74 acres of Neighborhood
'Parks/Squares. Additionally. the master plan calls for the development of the following
community facilities: a 28.000:f: sq. ft. Community Center; a 35.000:!: sq. ft. Recreation Center; a
l6.000:t sq. ft. Community Theatre; a 6,000:!: sq. ft. Senior Center; and an Aquatic Center.
It is City policy that no General Fund monies may be used to provide infrastructure for new development.
Thus. the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment contains a policy that new development pay for
infrastructure necessary to accommodate the development (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C). The EaStern
Dublin Specific Plan contains a similar policy (policy 10-1, page 151). The Parks and Recreation Master
Plan also contains goals and guiding policies relating to the implementation of funding sources to acquire,
develop, operate and maintain recreational facilities (Goal 5).
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE JUSTIFICATION S17.JDY
e"
In January of 1995, the City Council authorized the preparation of a study by Recht Hausrath &
Associates to establish a Public Facilities Fee Program for the City of Dublin. The results of the study are
contained in the attached Public Facilities Fee Justification Study (Exhibit A). The facilities which are the
subject of this study are parks, community and recreational facilities. libraries, and the Civic Center. .The
study documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required to serve new
development and determines the public facilities fees that new development should pay to fund its fair
share of those facilities needs.
\
The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a f01!l"-step process: (1) sele9ting a time
period and projecting new development; (2) determining facility service areas and identifYing'facilities to
accommodate new development; (3) estimating facilities costs; and (4) determining alterna~ve funding
sources. including an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among new developmeht. Each of
the four steps is summarized below.
New Development Projections
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required to serve
growth. For the purpose of this study, development p~ojections included the residents and employees
projected for the City's Eastern Extended Planning Area and projected growth in the existing area of the
City. No growth for the City's Western Extended Planning Area was included at this time. projections.
are for build-out of the City (estimated to occur about 2025) and include the addition of32,530 residents .>
and 28,000 employees citywide. '..:'.
Faciiities Requirements
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the adoption of
standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city infrastructure. The new facilities
.' ',~", ": that development must fund are then calculated according to these standards and proj ected service
, population growth, with residents used as a measure for the impacts of residential development and
employees used as a measure for non-residential development.
Facilities needed to accommodate ':new development include (1) neighborhood and community parks
(based on the standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act ~d adopted in the
City'S existing park dedication ordinance), (2) community and r-ooreation facilities including relocation
and expansion of the existing senior center. a community theater, a recreation center and an aquatic center,
(3) library improvements including an expansion of the exiting building plus a new branch in Eastern
',Oublip, and (4) completion of the unimproved areas of the Civic Center.
Facilities Costs
Cost 9f facilities to serve growth are estimated to be $84.8 million. As part of the study, careful review
was gIven to determine which facilities and costs should appropriately be funded by a public facilities fee.
Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy existing deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and
those which provide additional capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated according to the shares that
benefit each group. . .
Facilities Cost Allocation
Allocation of cost is done on the basis of service population. Service population is calculated by adding to
resident population a portion of employees. The weight assigned to employees is designed to reflect the
,. pr~portion of employee rela~ve to resident demand for a particular facility.
Though facilities needs are . allocated based on service population, e.g., cost per resident or cost per
employee, fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g.. fee per dwelling unit or
fee per square foot of building space. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of
facilities required to accommodate a particular type of development.
PROPOSED PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
Chapter ill through Chapter VI of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study describe the public
facilities owned by the City, the requirements to serve growth, and neyv facilities costs. Each chapter also
establishes a service population measurement which reflects the relative demand of residents and
employees. Costs of facilities are then allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
A brief summary of each chapter follows.' .
Neighborhood and Community Parks (Chapter Ill) ,
Dublin's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and community parks. The overall
5.0 acres per 1.000 residents park standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and
community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
includes approximately 258.5 acres of neighborhood and community parks. - - However. the new
4tdeve10pment demand for neighborhood and community parks is estimated to be 162.4 acres. Of this
aunt, 48.5 acres is the neighborhood park demand, applied only to Eastern Dublin, and 113.9 is the
:':.:' ommunity park demand, applied citywide. Land costs total $40.5 million for both neighborhood and
community parks. and the cost of improvements add another $22.9 million for a total of$63.5 million.
The service population for neighborhood parks applies to Eastern Dublin residential growth 'only.
Community park service population applies citywide and equals residents plus 15 percent of employees.
Costs for neighborhood parks total $688 per resident, including both land and improvements. Community
park costs total $1.124 per resident and $168 per employee, including both land and improvements. T~
III.6 of the Study shows the calculation of neighborhood and community park costs allocated to resid9
and Table III. 7 shows the calculation of community park costs allocated to employees.
As noted previously, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GP A) includes approximately 258.5
acres of neighborhood and community parks. Of this amount. the Public Facilities Fee will fund
acquisition and development of approximately 162.4 acres for a total of $63.5 million. Consequently, if
the total park acreage as identified in the GP A is going-to -be ,built-, there will. be a funding shortfall of
approximately $37.4 million which will need to be funded through alternate funding sources.
';Cl?mmunity and Recreation Facilities (Chapter IV) .
As the City grows in size. there are plans to add five more community and recreation facilities. These
include another community center, a recreation center, a community theater, another aquatic center and a
senior center to replace the existing one. Excluding the aquatic centers, community buildings citywide are
proposed to total 103.178 square feet by build-out (based on a facility standard of 1.78 square feet per
person). The new development demand for community building space is estimated to be 60.300 square
feet. The total cost of comrilunity buildings to serve growth is $12.06 million. The projected cost of an
additional aquatic center to serve the added population in eastern Dublin is $2.1 million.
The service population for community buildings equals residents plus 5 percent of employees.
Community building costs are allocated to both residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide.
Community building costs total $356 per resident and $18 per employee. The aquatic center costs .":
assigned to Eastern Dublin only and total $63 per resident and $3 per employee. Table IV.5 of the Stu", ,,:
shows the calculation for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and employees.
As noted previously. community buildings are proposed to total 103.178 square feet by build-out of the
City. Of this amount, the Public Facilities Fee will fund 60.300 square feet for a total of $12.06 million.
Consequently. if the total square footage of community buildings are to be built, there will be a funding
shortfall of approximately $4.9 million which will need to be funded through alternate funding sources.
~~~~~ l
Library services are provided to Dublin residents by the Alameda County Library Systemj with partial
funding from the City of Dublin. Proposed librmy improvements include the expansion of the current
I
15.000 square foot library by 7.000 square feet and-the construction of an additional29~00q square foot
library in Eastern Dublin. The new development demand for libraries is projected to 'be 25.200 square
feet of building space and 73,500 volumes (based on a per person standard of 0.6'5 square feet of library
building space 1.90 volumes). The total cost of libraries. including volumes, to serve growth is
$6.777,000.
The service population for libraries equals residents plus 22 percent of employees. Library costs are
allocated to both residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide. Librmy costs total $175 per
resident and $39 per employee. Table V.6 of the Study shows the calculation for library costs to residen~
and employees. ..,<'
As noted previously, proposed library improvements tota127,000 square feet. Of this amount, the Public
Facilities Fee will fund 25.200 square feet for a total of $6,777,000. Consequently, if the total square
footage for libraries is to be built, there will be a funding shortfall of approximately $352,800 which will
need to be funded through alternate funding sources.
. . Civic, Center (Chapter VI)
The Dublin Civic Center building was sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of 40,000
in the year 2005 and totals 53,000 square feet. Not all of this space is presently utilized. Proposed
.'... . improvements include the c'ompletion of 4,580 square feet of administrative space, renovations to the
1.800 square feet of the police wing, and renovations to the Police Department's secured parking lot. The
. total cost of Civic Center improvements associated with growth is $445,000.
The service population for the Civic Center equals residents plus 25 percent of employees. Civic Center
costs are allocated to both residential and commercial/industrial growth citywide. Civic Center costs total
$11 per resident and $3 per employee. Table VI.3 of th.~- Stpdy----Sh.ows_ the calculation for Civic Center
costs to residents and employees.
,
/':5 nqted previously. the Civic Center was sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of
40.006. Currently it is difficult to estimate the types of additional building space that will be needed to
serve ;the population once it exceeds 40,000. Consequently, it will be necessary to conduct a needs
analysis at some point in the future which would include an update to the public facilities fee to fund
additidnal office space to serve the increased population.
Summary Of Costs .
The following table swnmarizes the cost of facilities to serve growth. The costs are further divided into
two groups. First are those applied citywide. Certain facilities, namely community parks, community
building. libraries and the Civic Center, are regarded as expansions of citywide systems which benefit
both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin. These costs can therefore be applied to new development,
whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood parks and the aquatic center in Eastern
. Dublin are designed to serve growth in that area only., Since these facilities have a local area of benefit,
',,;., their costs are allocated to Eastern Dublin only. ,
Sununary of Costs To Serve Growth
Costs to Serve Growth Cost per Resident Cost per Employee
Citywide
Community Parks. Land $25,969,000 $708 $106
Community Parks, Improvements 15.263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6.777.000 175 39
Civic Center ~ ~It'. 445.000 11 .3.
Total $60,514,000 $1.666 $228
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $14,550,000 $450 $0
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements '7.682,000 238 0
Aquatic Center 2.]00.000 fl .3.
Total $24.3~2,000 $751 $3
Eastern Dublin Total "
Citywide Costs $60.514,000 $1.666' ~ $228
Eastern Dublin .Costs 24.332.000 lli .3.
Total $84,846,000 $2,417 $231
: . . :.:~..
Costs per resident and employee are e>..1ended to land use types as shov,'l1 in the table on the' fOlloWing
page. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment density is
expressed as square feet of building space per employee. Occupant densities for residential land uses are .
as follows: single family ~ 3.2 persons per residential unit; multiple family - 2..0 persons per residenti.
unit. Occupant densities for non-residential land uses are as follows: commercIal uses ~ 505 square ft
per employee; office uses - 260 square feet per employee; and industrial uses ~ 590 square feet per
employee. It should be noted that public agencies are exempt from paying development impact fees, thus,
the development and the corresponding employment is excluded from the fee analysis.
Impact Fee By Land Use
-.---. --..--' .,.
Residential, Commercial and Industrial,
.,.; 'L Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1.000 Square Feet
Single Family Multiple Familv Commercial "Office Industrial
Citywide
Community Parks. Land $2,266 $1,416 $210 $408 $180
Community Parks, 1,331 832 123 238 105
Improvements
Community Bui~dings 1,139 712 36 69 31
Libraries 560 350 77 150 66
Civic Center :ti 22- Q 12 .s.
T ota! . $5,331 $3.332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Only'
Neighborhood Parks. Land $1,440 $900 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Parks, 762 476 0 0 0
Improvements
Aquatic Center 202 ill .Q 12 ~
Total $2,404 $1,502 $6 $12 $5
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $5,331 $3,332 $452 $877 $387
Eastern Dublin Costs 2AQ4 .LiQ2 .6. 12 ~
Total $7.735 $4.834 $458 $889 $392
e::
-.
Program Implementation I
The actual implementation and administration of the public facilities fee program will involVe adopting
I
new procedures, training personnel. tracking facili~ costs and accounting for fee revenues. I;n addition,
Staff will be frequently confronted with particular situations in which the program's criteria must be
interpreted and special judgments rendered. Thus, following adoption of the public facilities' fee, Recht
Hausrath & Associates will be preparing administrative guidelines which will assist Staff in iinplementing
the Public Facilities Fee Program. These guidelines will address issues such as the imposition-of fees on
mixed use development projects, the use of fee credits, and the relationship between the fee's land use
categories and the City's zoning designations. The administrative guidelines will also address financial.
accounting, and compliance issues such as integration with the City's capital improvement program. The
administrative guidelines will be brought before the City Council for adoption at a later date.
e:::
. 'Furtli~r. it is recommended that the City undertake annual and longer-tenn (perhaps five-year) reviews of
the public facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation. The longer-
e'" tenn reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as growth forecasts,
',':, development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies. inflation, and land costs. Such reviews will help
attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing needs. -
Relationship Between Public Facilities Fee Program and Quimby Ordinance
The CitY has adopted an ordinance (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28) based on the Quimby Act
(Government Code Section 66477) regarding dedicatiOlLof:paric:land by, new development. The
ordinanc~'s provisions are applicable only when land is subdivided for residential development. At that
time. tIfe City may require the land owner to either dedicate land for park purposes or pay an in-lieu fee
instead~ The amount of land dedicated or fee paid is based on the estimated residential population of the
ProposCfd development and provision of park land equal to the City's standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000
population.
I
As proposed, the City would implement the park facilities fee documented in the study in conjunction
with the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are imposed
when land is subdivided. public facilities fees are imposed later in the deyelopment process, when
building permits are issued (or at occupancy). If a parcel of land has already been charged with a Quimby
park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the park land component of the public facilities fee would then be
deducted. Examples to illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications. and Quimby deductions will
be applied in different parts of the City are contained in Table VII.3 of the Study.
" ".ONCLUSION
As stated previously, the purpose of the public facilities fee is to finance municipal public facilities to
reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin. As shown in
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
and other related studies. future development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the
need for the facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Justification Study.
The Public Facilities Fee Justification Study establishes the following:
· That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the facilities and the impacts of the types
of development for which the corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of
Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential ahd non-residential - will generate persons who live.
work and/or shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the
facilities;
· That there is a reasonable relationship between.the fee's use (to pay for the construction of the
facilities) and the type of development for which the fee is charged in that all development in the City
of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin - both residential and non-residential - generates or contributes to the
need for the facilities; '.
· That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or
e portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin in that the fee
." is calc)llated based on the number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses,
: ': : . the total amount it will cost to construct the facilities, and the percentage by which development
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the need for the facilities;
· That the cost estimates set forth in the study and master plan are reasonable cost estimates 'for
constructing the facilities. and the fees expected to be generated by future development will not
exceed the projected costs of constructing the facilities; .
· The method of allocation of the fee to a particular development bears a fair and reason.::
relationship to each development's burden on. and benefit from, the facilities to be ftmded by the . ,;'.
in that the fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees each particular
development will generate.
It should be noted that the adoption of a public facilities fee which is applicable to properties within the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area will not preclude develol'e_rs fi:oIl} pi~~~ and choosing from the
various fmancing options available to them. Developers are-required to prepare Financing Plans which
are to be part of the Development Agreement. The Financing Plan is the vehicle for a developer to
J'ri?pose the "mix" of financing options available to him so that the property is not overburdened with
assessments and/or special taxes. Fox example. a developer could propose that-1he City establish an
assessment district to generate the money for the public facilities fee. The City would receive the money
up front and the developer (and future owners) would pay the annual assessments.
Government Code section 65913.2 requires the Council to consider the effect of a resolution such as this
with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the City is located. This resolution is ODe step in
the implementation of the Eastern 'Dublin Specific Plan which contemplates close to 13.906 dwelling
units at buildout, which will have a beneficial effect on the housing needs of the region.
Adoption of the public facilities fee is consistent with the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed and approved the Public FaCiliti.,
Fee in concept. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council conduct ,the public hearing and ado .
the resolution establishing a public facilities fee. ' ' '
.-
~
e.:
.... ::
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. _~96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE-"'- "-
FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITmN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
~.~,;
RECITALS
WHEREAS,. the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin
Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing
and charging a Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") to pay for municipally owned public
facilities within "Eastern Dublin" and within the jurisdictional limits of the City of
Dublin (excluding areas within Eastern Dublin) ; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and
Specific Plan ("SP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the GP A outline~ future land uses for approximately 4176 acres
within the City's eastern sphere ofinfluence including approximately 13,906 dwelling
units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial development;
and
WHEREAS, the SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action
programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City; and
1
EXHIBIT C
WHEREAS, the GP A and SP areas ("Eastern Dublin") are shown on the Land
.
Use Map contained in the GPA (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and exclude the area
shown on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area/Agriculture"; and
WHEREAS. a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
~... ::-,.-== --;::::==- = !, ..
the GPA and SP (SCH No, 91103604) and certified by the Council on May 10,
"
~~'
1993 by Resolution No, 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22,
,1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and considered by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan ("Master Plan") was
adopted by the Council on July 25, 1994, by Resolution No. 77-94;
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Library Planning Task Force Report,
("Librazy Report") dated April 1993; and
.
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming Document
("Civic Center Report") dated November 1986;
WHEREAS, the Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR
and Addenda describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of
the SP, including completion of City office space, construction of a library,
acquisition and construction of parIes and community facilities;
WHEREAS, the EIR and Addenda assumed that certain municipal public
facilities would be constructed and that development within Eastern Dublin would
pay its proportionate share of such facilities; and
.
2
.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a "Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" by Resolution No. 53-93
which includes mitigation measures to assure that development within Eastern
Dublin pays its proportionate share of municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate
~_ --=:.:---:-::::::::::::- -_ . I I I
impacts caused by development within Eastern Dublin; and
,,'
WHEREAS, the Master Plan, Library Report, Civic Center Report, SP, EIR
and Addenda describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing
public facilities in the City of Dublin and Eastern Dublin through the year 2025, and
contain an analysis of the need for new municipal public facilities required by future
development within Dublin and Eastern Dublin; and
.
WHEREAS, a detailed comprehensive study of the impacts of contemplated
future development on existing public facilities in Dublin through the year 2025,
along with an analysis of the need of new public facilities and improvements required
by future developments, prepared by Recht Hausrath & Associates, dated December
entitled "City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study" (Exhibit B hereto,
referred to herein as the "study"); and
WHEREAS, the study sets forth the relationship between contemplated future
development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements;
and
WHEREAS the study was available for public inspection and review for ten
. (10) days prior to this public hearing; and
3
FINDINGS
.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Public Facilities Fee (hereafter "Fee" ) is to finance
municipal public facilities to reduce the impacts caused by future developments in the
:IIIIIIIIF="" .=11":"......_.-._...1' ,'\1
:'
City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin. Such facilities, which are specifically described
.~
in the study, include the following: completion of the Civic Center office space;
construction of a new libraxy and expansion of the existing libraxy; relocation and
expansion of the existing senior center; acquisition and construction of neighborhood
and comm1ll1ity parks and community buildings (including a community theater, a
community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center). The public facilities
described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities".
.
B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance
the Facilities.
C. Mter considering the study, the testimony received at this noticed
public hearing. the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the Master Plan, the Libraxy
Report, the Civic Center Report, the GPA, the SP, the EIR and Addenda, and all
correspondence received (hereafter "record") the Council approves and adopts said
study, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the future development in
the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin will generate the need for the Facilities and
the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Master Plan, the Library
Report, the Civic Center Report, the GP A and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
.
4
.
.
. -
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within East~rn
Dublin is within the scope of the EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were all identified
in the EIR as necessary to accommodate development in Eastern Dublin. The
impacts of such development, including the Facilities~~ere ad~q~~e1y analyzed at a
-,.
Program level in the EIR. Since the certification of the EIR there have been no
."
, substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified in the EIR,
no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new
information of substantial importance so as to require important revisions in the
EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-
specific environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before
any such Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific
environmental review of the Facilities at this stage, as they will be implemented over
at least a 30-year period and specific details as to their timing, construction and
precise location are not presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of
Dublin (excluding Eastern Dublin) is to obtain fUnds for capital projects necessary to
maintain service within the existing service areas; that the City currently provides
neighborhood and community park services, community and recreation facilities
services, and civic center services; that the City and the Alameda County Library
System currently provide library services; that the public facilities fee will be used to
. maintain current service levels; and that existing deficiency costs are not included in
5
: .
the fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the City (excluding
.
Eastern Dublin) is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources
Code 9 21080(b)(8)(D)).
F. In adopting the Fee, the Council is exercising its powers under Article XI
== =.__ ..::-~. _~ " II "
9 7 of the California Constitution.
'~r
G. The record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding
fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin --
both residential and non-residential -- will generate persons who live, work and/or
shop in Dublin and Eastern Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for .
the Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to
pay for the construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the
Fee is charged in that all development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin--
both residential and non-residential -- generates or contributes to the need for the
Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
Fee and the cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the
City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the
number of residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total .
6
.
amount it will cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which
development within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin contributes to the
need for the Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth ~~_ t?e St~dy.~d Master Plan
~ __ ~ ~ 'I
are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Facilities, and the Fees expected to
~,.~,
be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of
constructing the Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development
bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit
from, the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the
.
number of residents or employees each particular development will generate.
H. The study is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected by
development in the City of Dublin and in Eastern Dublin, the existing deficiencies
and the public facilities required to accommodate that development and those
deficiencies.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE
as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
. constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for facilities
7
for the purchase and sale of commodities and services and the sales, servicing,
.
installation, and repair of such commodities and services and other space uses
incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not limited to:
apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and
~ =-_..,.--:-~' ~ J 1\
savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry
~i~r
cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets;
general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and improvement
centers; hotel/motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations;
shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters.
b. "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration or addition
of any building or structure within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin. .
c. "Eastern Dublin" shall mean all property within the "General Plan
Amendment Study Area" as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A hereto)
excepting the property designated as "Future Study Area/Agriculture."
d. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are
described in the Study and as described in the Master Plan, the Library Report, the
Civic Center Report, SP, EIR and Addenda. "Facilities" shall also include comparable
alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region
necessitate construction ,of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council
later determines (I) that there is a reasonable relationship between development
within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin and the need for the alternative .
8
e
e-
facilities (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the Study,
and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be' used only to pay new development's fair
and proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
e. "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
~ __-=-.__~ -_ 1\11
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for the
1'\',.....
manufacture, production, assembly, and processing of consumer goods and other
space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial land uses include but are not
limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractor's storage yards;
fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards;
printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy
commercial uses.
f. "Multiple Family" shall mean any dwelling unit as defined in the
Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City, which is constructed on property
designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre.
g. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general
business offices, medical and professional offices, administrative or headquarters
offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, and research and
development and other space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses
include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business park; finance
e offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices and
9
office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real
estate offices; research and development and travel agencies.
h. "Single Family" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in the
Uniform Building Code (UBC), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is
-, --- -- - .. .,
constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP
.',
~!':'
for 6 or fewer units per acre.
2. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
a. A Public Facilities Fee ("Fee") shall be charged and paid for each
Single Family and Multiple Family residential unit within the city of Dublin and
within Eastern Dublin no later than the date of final inspection for the unit.
b.
A Fee shall be charged and paid for non-residential buildings or
structures within the City of Dublin and within Eastern Dublin by the date that the
building permit is issued for construction of such building or structure.
c. Any use of land which is not included in the definition of
"Commercial," "Industrial," or "Office" shall be allocated by the Planning Director to
one of the three categories, maintaining as much consistency as possible with the
definitions of such terms.
3. Amount of Fee.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto
and incorporated herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a
separate fee.
10
.
.
.
.
l' 0::'
.
.
4.
Exemptions From Fee.
a. The Fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
(I) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure,
except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a
_.. ------... - _________ - - j, , I
single family residential unit or another unit is added to
an existing multi.family residential rmit;
(2) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing
residential structure that has been destroyed or
demolished provided that the building permit for
reconstruction is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished rmless the
replacement or reconstruction increases the square
footage of the structure fifty percent or more.
(3) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-
residential structure that has been destroyed or
demolished provided that the building permit for new
reconstruction is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished.
I I
5.
Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the
Capital Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund
shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each
~ :::r-=:__.."~.. = .' II .'
account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
'.
"c,
(1)
To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land
acquisition and construction of the Facilities and
reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related
thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by
the City with funds from other sources including funds
from other public entities, unless the City funds were
obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to
be used for the Facilities.
(3) , To reimburse developers who have designed and
constructed Facilities which are oversized with
supplemental size, length, or capacity; and
(4) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program
development and ongoing administration of the Fee
program.
12
.
.
.
.
.
.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities
and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
6. Standards
The standards upon which the need~Jo~~_e Facil~ti~s ,are based are the
~_ ~_._ __.........----.._ _ I I
standards of the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General
1"',);',
Plan, the Master Plan, the Library Report, the Civic Center Report, the GPA, SP,
EIR, and Addenda.
_IIQm:~~I~llg:~~~
B~:~:~~~II;iimlr.i~i:!lllfil~~~:~IlI_li~:~~~.g~~~~B91~~~i:::1l~:~:m~lmill
f,9t::l991IB!I1:!III:;!~::~9111l!11::~I~llng~j:!:III:::~i,it_;:jlil:i:!ill!!lni:::I'I:~:i9i1;~~
W:,:,
"- ...
::-.:::::
',.;.;40
:.:.;.:".:
~11I;~IM':~I~l.ilil*:!!!ag.:::ll*lni~!~~i.I!::[q;!!:~I~!!!.jll:!:III~~~Blg~;
8. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report
for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the
balance of Fees in each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council
shall also review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the
approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities
to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with
appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall mal(e findings identifying the
13
and analysis to detennine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional
information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to detennine that the
.
amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin
and within Eastern Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the
findings and conclusions of fi.uther studies and any siaI~aards i~ the d P A, SF, Master
'"
" Plan, Lihrary Rr.port, Civic Cr.ntr.r Rr.port and Gr.nr.ra.l Plan, as wr.ll as inc:rr.asr.s dur. to
~ .. .
fl am," '''''''N'~Q!''''M''MMm'';'*'''''m''' ".' ~'" ,'NN"V'''*~8''"R'''N~'No/W''''=1
. t. d . d t ct' t' " ";;;0"'" ,'",'",. '''':r; " ",',"", " ',', ',""'" ';" " "', 'r"':""l"A'IotZ "'l" ",' "',,"'," ",....flitJii
In a IOn an Increase cons ro IOn cos s. U;lf;j\h:/::I'l&liL"L;, "{t:,,';J],;~,,,~,,,:L,\\fthitSMJ:PR,~~~it!iE
, ", ..{ "~': :S'~grmS]1!rl~lqU'!lwltlmtlm~Q~1I111Immf~
.ti~lumrlfJi1:~tl:f'm!rfm:~mff.BtllR~lImYrf(;r
~.~~lfril~.r~r,{
:i\!:i=.J; ~,,,,,=,,~,.,,;Ui~ N"""'''''' ,,' "
"'... ~~Y";' . ;.~.~~.. ...........
10. Administrative Guidelines.
The Council m:ay~,~mI, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to
.
provide procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other
administrative aspects of the Fee. ~~~mt~,:ggJ~~gn~~;'~lilm!-ml~,ii;\~!fl1a~~glfgl
i~mBgjli'tti~jm~I~jIH~i~1!~gt~i~tt~y~!~p~~~:J
11. Effective Date,
This resolution shall become effective immediately. The Fee provided if
Sections 2 and 3 of this resolution shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of
the resolution.
12. Seventbilily.
Each component of the Fee and all pOltions of this resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this
14
.
resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or
. provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective
except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ~i day of January..., 1996, by the
following vote:
r;:'.
,~I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR
A TrEST:
.
CITY CLERK
EHS:rja
]:\WPD\MNRSW\114\RESOL\50\FACILITI.RDL
.
15
~..
(") co
<U en C'l
en III
(l.J U U ci ~
... '" U III
<l; U ~ ~ u 0 '" ...
'" ~ ~ 0 Q,I >-
\0 ~ .Q:: '"
C N '<T ~
I I '7" ~ >. -.
It) '<T '0
C N ... lD ... 2
C .' <\I '. n
2 U) ..
.!2 1il >. c:
'u B F- (5 ,:.!. m
0- lD u (5 u :a Q,I Ql
'" 0 0 Xi -eo. Q,I -l3 < Z .:.': . .~:
~ ]j .z:. 'to u. ..r:: ..r:: rn
Ol z
"'C '- 0 'jjj ~ W u U :J c: '" '0 :J 5i ...~i~. . . .
C1) .C: ~ U)U) 0. .Q 0. 0 cr ...
0 lD Q,I '" a. .0 >-..r:: 0 .~ iii i::;o 0 en 0 ~~. U) CC:Z ~~"
"0 U E 0 2;- ':;) 0 ::J ... Ol 0 .Ql ,:.!.. 'c of: ;g Qi
a.. <II ~ 'iij c....... ~ III .- ..r:: OJ '0 ... Qi QJ
C '0 E >. ..r:: .,f; {l g c: :c u U) l:i .... :J 0 0 QJ ... .b III . ..
-t 8 ~. '" c: III E .0 0 U 0 QJ ~ '0 la la 'W . I- .
C1) 0 ,." .2' QJ E QJ ... U) ...... QJ U)
t: a. IJl tIl .- ..J 0. ..r::..r:: III U .b C . .
.... :E ~ U 0 c :x:: 0 c: IJl m Q,I E .2 ..r:: J? a: .2:- E .21 0 n (f) ... . :J rL rL .- toll
.!l!'~ .. ~ iii OJ E E OJ Ql => l/) c: Q>.a .., (f) E 0 o ro'.g 1-...1' .,
.~ 0 0 a: a.. ...... ~ ;::J. cr .- 0 QJ .0 1ii U
'0.. LU ... .~ .;;J u w-,J: ",UUZ..r:: c: '" .~ CD Oi'u. i
..J ~ Ql iii ..L. 'C:
::J ..J 'Th '0 '0 :to = ,:.!. Q> OJ Ql Z 2! OJ - c: OJ .
C (/) ~ c: 5 ::2: ~'ID<5l@~ '0
- OJ OJ '0 ~ OJ OJ 0 ~@<ID(ID~ n b. Q ~ F g d b1 en tlL: ::.
C\3 100. ::> "0 U z,.CL .J;; I- :I: :::: ;: ..J a: W 0 (J) l- t)
"'" CU r:: a: z (f) :5 ~.. 0:'.
CU .... 0 UJ ......
Q) iB~BB~ QI . <( Ill.
C.(/') 'Z 0'1 "~~IB ~ >>1$ rn [J~~'=> I I i I ..~.
Q) C'O :E ;!:, .... :.:.' .~~: \ U J ~ I W'C:~
t!J11I S Q) Oil!! :.:. I... .....1 "n I a: I I
-I U j:!: :: '.. ~ . ,....: .: i3 t j ~
n. ;!-,' n'
.
~
.'
t'
":, :. 8
.,',' ~I
;:X\~!.~ ;.::;.
.', ~i ','e. r t.' ~
,', ,.~.~\::. .:-.'.I,;.'~ ...
" ".c..." 1.'I""'~ I
'~~!1~~~
.. ;.~t~'\o}",';'l,......:.,
..
~
<({
I
i
I
~..~
~ .........
ti.]
1Ii',n,/".:~
~:' '. : . . .~ ::z.~
" ",
J::n
. . "1
g " II
~l )
.... .
* '.
'"' I
,
. -t..
.'
"j'.
r-------~---.-~----__, -1--------:1
: , --..... '\'\
I <( L..--.-
..
I W :,
I 0:
I <(
,
~---.....------_____....-....-_...--J
I >-
\ 0
\ ~
\ ~
,
\ W
\ 0:
\ .'" '. ~
\ :::>
~~ LL
'W.~
3~
~cl.
\ 1
\ JI --------,
\'2): ---,-----. l..
\ oJ \ i
I
I i
I
I
I
I
W
'0:
::::,
I-
-I'
:::>
o
0:
C)
<(
(I)
Q)
i-
t)
<(
O'l
c-) (I) ,.....
"<l" Q) >.
t- i- .0
C\J t) (I)
<( 0
'-
.. ~,~ . ..
:t ~ i.~.' '"> ':t .
.' .
, "
'-.
,
.~,.
.e.
----
I
,....,
c:
,....,0
c: 'j;;
.2 ~
~ M
G'i5
~ OJ
Qi
QJCi
on; E
i5. 0
E u
8 ~
~ ><
)( ~
2! m
:m3
3: <(
......0-
.::l <(
Q(II .J::
UJ ."=
fe ~
r.u. i:
m, QJ
.... .....
ll"' .!!!
U ~
:\..I: 0
__ I.)
~, .1;
F.: '0
i~ .~
.:t s!
C;) IU
'0 "U
QJ e
c: OJ
c: ..r::
..!!! ~
Cl.
J:I QI
>..a
.CIa
", 'C:
2! 01
."='l <(
E lil
~~
G. >-
.0'0
>. ::J
'" -
Een
<U
Iii .2
-Q :J
QJ u..
E .9
E t
o <U
o >
Iii c:
... 0
(IJ U
~ ~
* *
*
-
CITY OF DUBLIN
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
JUSTIFICATION STUDY
Prepared for:
The City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Urban Economists
1212 Broadway
Oakland) California 94612
(510) 839w8383
FAX 839w84l5
March 7. 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUl\1MARY
SITUATION . .
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS .
FACILITIES COST. .
FEE LEVELS
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES. .
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA ...
FEE DETERMINATION ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER II
NEW DEVELOPlvfENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . .
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS. . . . . . . .
POPULATION AND E]\I[pLOYMENT . . .
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FACILITY 5T ANDARD5 AND NEEDS .. . . . . . .
P ARK COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER IV
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EA'1STING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES . . . . . .
F ACILITlES STANDARDS AND NEEDS. . . .
COST ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. IV
IV
.........V
VI
. .. VI
I-I
. . . . .. 1-2
1-3
. . . . .. ..... II-I
. . . . . B-2
. . . . . . . . . . . 11-5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-l
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . 1II-3
. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . IlI-6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1II-9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-l
. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . IV-2
. . . . . . . . . . . IV-5
CHAPTER V
LIBRARJES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... V-I
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. . .. ......... V-2
COST ALLOCA IION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5
Recht Hallsmth & Associates
II
DlIhlin Facili/ies Fee :'\/1/(11'
ruble (~f Con/ellls
CHAPTER VI
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES ..
COST ALLOCATION. . . .
. . VI- J
. VI-2
CHAPTER VII
CALCULATION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENT A TION
SUMMARY OF COSTS
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE. .
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM AND
QUIMBY ORDINANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. VlI-l
. . . . . . VlI-2
VlI-3
. . VII-4
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION . . . . . .
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
. A-I
. . . . A-2
III
Rech/ HCTlIsrath & AssociolCS
EXEClJTIVE Slll\1l\1ARY
SITtJA TION
The City of Dublin is planning for extensive growth in its Eastern Extended Planning area. Pal10f
this planning involves provisiori of public facilities to assure an adequate level of public services.
This report documents the capital expansions planned by the City of Dublin through its build-out
around year 2025. It sets fOl1h the basis for measuring facilities standards and applies the costs of
the required expansions to determine the facilities impact associated with new development.
Although the emphasis is on Eastern Dublin, the growth projections include an allowance for
additional development in the existing portions of the City, so that the fees may be applied
citywide
It is anticipated that Dublin will rely primarily on the authority to levy fees specified in AB 1600,
although park requirenlents could be established under the Quimby Act. Costs of new
development are assigned to residential and commercial and industrial land uses according to
occupant densities to arrive at fee levels by land use type. In situations where an existing
deficiency exists in a pcll1icular facility, costs to cure the deficiencies are estimated as well.
Existing deficiency costs are not included in the public facilities fee and will be funded separately
by the City.
Tables accompanying this summary are located at the end of the text.
DEVELOPlVIENT PROJECTIONS
Development in Eastern Dublin is expected to add 13,836 new dwelling units and 9.74 million
square feet of commercial and industrial space through build-out. This excludes any expansions
of County facilities. Existing areas of the City are expected to grow by a comparatively small
amount, 103 dwelling units and 692,000 commercial and industrial square feet. Applying
occupant densities, new development will add 32,530 residents and 28,000 employees citywide
This represents a 137 percent increase in the resident population and a 280 percent increase in
employment over existing levels. Growth projections used in this study exclude any potential for
unincorporated areas in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area.
iv
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
Dllh/ill Fucililies h!c SII1i(r
L~'(eclltivc SlIl11l11WY
Residents and employees are used as the basis for facilities demand. Residents and employees are
combined into a service population measurement, calculated as residents plus a fraction of
employees. Service population is determined separately for each facility according to estimated
employee use, and is used 10 assign j~lcilities cost to new development by type of space. Table I,
at the end of this summary. ShOV.iS existing and proposed land uses. Population and employment
are shown in Table 2.
FACILITIES COST
Costs of facilities to serve growth are shown in Table 3. For the facilities covered under the fee
program, cost of grovith \vill total $848 million
The neighborhood and community parks requirements are based on the standard of 5.0 acres per
1,000 residents established in the Quimby Act and adopted in the City's existing park dedication
ordinance. The land component may be dedicated or satisfied in the form of an in-lieu fee,
depending on the circumstances of individual projects Neighborhood park costs are included in
the calculation of the fee for Eastern Dublin only because those parks would only benefit that
area, not the citywide service population
Community and recreation facilities include several expansions located in Eastern Dublin.
Proposed projects include a relocation and expansion of the existing senior center, a community
theater, a community center, a recreation center and an aquatic center. For the senior center the
costs shown refer only to the net increase in size over the existing building.
Proposed library improvements include an expansion of the existing building plus a new branch in
Eastern Dublin, including volumes
The Dublin Civic Center houses administrative oflices and the police department. The building
was designed to accommodate activity commensurate with an estimated resident service
population of 40,000 in the year 2005 Eventually, growth will require finishing certain areas
currently used as storage and renovation of portions of the Police wing.
v
Recht HOllsroth & Associates
Dublin Facilities Fee ~);ttl.dy
Executive SWnnWl)'
FEE LEVELS
Table 4 summarizes resulting impact fee levels by land use, Facilities costs of growth have been
allocated to individual land uses according to residents per dwelling unit and employees per
1,000 square feet of cormnercial and industrial space, The majority of fees would be levied
citywide because they would fund facilities with citywide benefit. NeighborhoOd parks and the
aquatic center have a local benefit, so fees for these facilities are applied to that area in Eastern
Dublin only.
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
For a public facilities fee program to be equitable, new development should not be charged fot' a
higher standard of facilities than is provided to other parts of the community. To do so would
impose the burden of remedying eXisting deficiencies onto new development. In the case of
comm.unity parks, community buildings and libraries the facilities standard at build-out will
exceed that presently available. The City of Dublin must therefore provide a portion of the
funding for these facilities from sources other than impact fees to recognize the benefit existing
land uses will receive from an improved level of service. Table 5 shows the cost to remedy
existing deficiencies, estimated at $7.754 million.
Recht Hausl'ath & Associates
vi
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 52 3,846 3,898
Multiple Family Q 9.990 9,990
Total 52 13,836 13,888
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,275 23 5,298
Multiple Family 2.868 80 2.948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family 2.868 10.070 12.938
Total 8,195 13,939 22,134
COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL (1,000 Sq.Ft.)
Eastern Dublin
Commercial 0 4,415 4,415
Office 0 3,952 3,952
Industrial Q 1.370 1.370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Conunercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 29 812
T ota! 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office 962 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 1.399 illl
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: State Dcpartmcmt of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin GenerQI P/QnAmendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1-7-94); R~t
Hausrath & AJsociates.
Table 1
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
vii
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Dlfh/in Facilities Fee Sll"~\' E'(eclftil'e Slfl11J11C.lI)!
Table 2
Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTS
I Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
I
Rest of City 23,500 230 23,730
City Total 23,660 32,530 56,190
EMPLOYEES
Eastern Dublin 0 26,200 26,200
Rest of City 10,000 1.800 11.800
City Total 10,000 28,000 38,000
Source: Cit\' oj'Duhlin. Ea.Hl'/'lIl J//hlill .<'jIL'dlic 1'/011 (1-7-9../): Recht j-Iuusruth & Associates
Recht Hallsrath & Associates 1'/11
Duh/in Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summary
Table 3
Facilities Costs of Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Costs of Growth
Citywide
Commtmity Pa 'ks, Land $25,969,000
Community Patks, Improvements 15,263,000
Community Bu1ildings 12,060,000
Libraries 6,777,000
Civic Center 445.000
Total $60.514,000
Eastern Dublin bnly
Neighborhood Darks, Land $14)550,000
Neighborhood larks, Improvements 7)682)000
Aquatic Center 2.1 00,000
Total $24,332,000
Total Costs of G "owth
Citywide Costs $60,514,000
Eastern Dublin tosts 24.332.000
Total $84,846,000
Source: City ofbubl n; Recht Hausrath ,& Associatos.
Recht Hausroth & Associates
ix
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Executive Summar:v
~ :; 0 In - \.0 1r'l1 r--. 00 <nll.ti t- <nIN
00:> 0 (<") '..0 00 <'h ~ 00 0\
g. ~ - - r<) ('/') f"")
YO (i,q &l ~ &7
='
en "0
0 .s
0
o~
....
~
!:l. Il.l 00:> 00 0'> 0 C"ll t- oo (""IN t- NIO\
Il.l S o ('1j '..0 Vi \-< r- f>9 ...... ....... r- ..... 00
Cl.l "<t ("1 .-< 00 {,A) 00 00
tI... 0 ~ fA ~ {,A)
ci~
',fj OJ
~tI...
"0
.s
"t:l
~ '7il 0 ('1j \0 r- \OI~ 00 ~II.D ('I l.Oloo
"g ..... N f"") t- 1;;'7 liA- l(') on
"<'i N .- V V 'Ot'
'~ ~ <t':l ~ fR V;-
ol)
~ 0
U
U
Il.l >-. \ON N 0 NIN 0'-0 \01 ('-I N~'Ot'
c.~ ..... (<") - II') 01 r"" Or--. 0~ 0 M ("f')
:;... .~ 'J;;! ~ -.::1-,,00 r- ("f') ..f') O'\"=t ..... li", r<"l, 'n 00_
"0 .: JtI... ..... ('1j ~ - M""'~
<lJ B ::J ..: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~U'J n Ofj
t--- a) ]S
~~ I:l <l)
~ ~6
~ ~ ~ /I) :;.- \0-010 l,i'l ...... 0> 1:"'1 Nj"':!" ..... ~~on
--'
- "0 '.;::1 ~ .... O.o.M \0 rf') M \C! f""". ("f') ~\O 00 ('1j 0 ("')
.0 lI) ,6 ~ ("'~ ....... _ II') f"1, ":r,,"" 01 ~, ""'1 'Ot' t-
s~ C.
~ .... N"";''''''':-' l.("~N ~
E- ~ 16 ~ ClJi.J:., on .-< N
liA- fA ~ fA ~ ;;.<7
;>, ,.
..0-
~]
u....g
c:4
en
tl
Q)
~
p.
"tj g
a c.. oil
~ ..s cD
Ji ~"~
~ a'S
p,.p.,CCl
poc 2
'8 'S 'a Ul ~
Il.l ~ ::l ;:l Q) U
1 ~ ~ ~] .~ l
.l:' 0 co........
.... U U () -J U
U
Recht Hausrath & Associates
~
Q)
~
l g.
....:J.E
~ ttt ~"
-'~ ..:..:
~~~
="O"'tJ.B
:.:::l 0 0
,.l:l 0 0 5
=-t:l-flu
~ 0 0 u
= iJ ..0 '.;:I "3
'"' :.o~~ 0
~ '~'u cr' [--<
~zz<
~
"; ~
- 1:':1
~ (j
~ rIJ ......
:ES t; .=
:C8:g
~~a
E '$ ~]
Q,) f. - 0
~.... ~ ~
il!$UtJ.l
~
~
"g
'"
.(
~
1
i;l
::c
~
~
<<::
~
=>
c
Cf)
x
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
ExeCulive Summary
Table 5
SWllmary of Existing Deficit
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Parks
Community Buildings
Libraries
Total
$1,199,000
6,200,000
355,000
$7,754)000
Annually, 1995-2025
$258,500
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
City facilities provide services for t he benefit of city residents, businesses, and employees. As this
service population increases, so does the demand for city facilities. As developers build new
homes and commercial/industrial buildings, the City must provide corresponding amounts of new
facilities to serve this development, that is, unless existing residents are to experience a decline in
the standard of facilities that they had previously enjoyed. Moreover, newer cities such as Dublin
often have deficient standards for existing facilities In this case, the City is choosing to expand its
facilities above standards that currently exist This policy will allow the City to accommodate both
existing and new development at the levels of service it desires
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the amount and cost of new public facilities for city services required (I)
to serve new development through the year 2025 and, (2) to correct existing deficiencies In
addition, this report determines the public facilities fees, or impact fees, that new development
should pay to fund its fair share of those facilities needs. The report documents the maximum
justified level of those fees
This introductory chapter to the Public Facilities Fee Justification study summarizes the fee
program under the following topics:
. Public Facilities Financing in California
. Fee Determination
. Facilities Costs and Fee Schedules
. Program Implementation
The introduction is intended to provide a general understanding of the concepts and methodology
used to design public facilities fees The second chapter sets forth projections of new
development Each succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis of the specific costs and
assumptions involved in the calculation of the costs for a facility type, namely parks, community
and recreational facilities, libraries, and civic center. The final chapter uses the facilities costs to
I-I
Recht Hallsrath (~ Associates
Dlfhlin Fucilifil's Fee SUn!\'
Chapter 1
determine fee levels Appendix A calculates the cost of existing deficiencies which the City must
fund through means other than impact fees.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
Several events during the past 20 years have steadily undercut the financial capacity of local
governments to build infrastructure passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond initiatives,
and severe reductions in federal and state assistance Since Proposition 13, propeny taxes have
been inadequate to nll1d capital needs, and for many cities have been insufficient for on-going
operations and maintenance expenses to maintain levels of service.
As a longer-term response, most cities and ~ounties are shifting the burden of financing the capital
costs of additional infrastructure to accommodate new development from tax revenues and
general obligation bonds to that development. This shift has primarily been accomplished through
the imposition of public facilities fees, also know as development impact fees. Some fee programs
address only a few specific facilities, such as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal
fee programs are comprehensive, requiring developers to pay for all additions to municipal
facilities needed to accommodate new development The facilities which are the subject of this
analysis are (I) parks, (2) community and recreational facilities, (3) libraries, and (4) the Civic
Center. Financing of other facilities is addressed by the City separately
As a result of wide-spread imposition of public Hlcilities fees, the State Legislature passed
AB ] 600 adding Government Code sections 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules for imposition
and on-going administration offees. The law, which became effective in January 1989, requires
local governments to document that a reasonable relationship exists between new development,
the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that development. The legal requirements restrict
how local governments may impose and use public facilities fees. In general, the law requires that
tbe fee amount be sufficient only to fund the additional facilities required to serve new growth
It is imponant to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees must
conform to the conditions imposed by AB 1600 and case law, and are used exclusively to fund the
capital costs of new facilities As long as fees comply with these restrictions, they only require
action by the elected governing board of a city or county to be imposed. Taxes, on the other
hand, may be used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and most tax increases
must be approved by the voters. Consequently, it is critical in the documentation for any public
Recht HOlfsmth & AS.mciutcs
1-2
Duhlin Facilities Fee .\'1/1((1'
Chapter /
facilities fee program to demonstrate that the fee is not greater than the cost of facilities to
accommodate new development to avoid being challenged as a tax.. This study serves that
purpose.
FEE DETERl\1INA TION
The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a four-step process: (I) selecting a
time period and projecting new development, (2) determining facility service areas, and identifying
facilities to accommodate new development, (3) estimating facilities costs, and (4) determining
alternative funding sources, including an appropriate and equitable means to allocate costs among
new development.
Nelli Development Pn?iecrioJ1s
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities required
to serve growth The Easicm f)lfhllll (Jellcral Plall AI71i!lIdmenl and the Eastem DlIhlill ,\fJec{/ic
Plall (Jan. 7, 1994) lists new development. residents and employees projected for the City's
Eastern Extended Planning Area The City has provided additional information on growth in the
existing area of the City which also will be subject to impact fees No growth for the City's
Western Extended Planning Area is included at this time. Projections are for build-out of the City
which is estimated to occur about 2025.
Facilities Requirements
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires the
adoption of standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city infrastructure.
Standards are often stated in terms of a city's amount of facilities per capita (eg, acres of park
land per capita). The new facilities that development must fund are then calculated according to
these standards and projected service population growth, with residents used as a measure for the
impacts of residential development and employees used as a measure for non-residential
development.
In the case of parks, the facilities requirement is determined by applying a park land standard
consistent with the Quimby Act legislation enabling park land dedication by new development.
The amount of parks needed is therefore a function of the level of growth For the remaining
/-3
Recht Hallsmth & Associates
Dllhlill Facilities Fee ,"ltlll(1'
Chaptet I
facilities the City has proposed specific improvements to accommodate its build-out population.
In these cases the facilities standards are calculated for the build-out year and are used as the basis
to assign costs to the new and existing service populations
The City can adopt its own reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the present
levels of service provided to the existing population. However, new development cannot be held
accountable for higher standards than the current population is willing to provide for itself Thus,
if existing facilities are below the standard chosen as a basis for fees, the City must use alternative
funds to expaJld these facilities to the same standard. This is called correcting an existing
deficiency. New development cannot be asked to cure an existing deficiency.
Facilities Costs
. The City of Dublin has provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the
year 2025. We gave careful review to the determination as to which facilities and costs were
appropriately funded by a public facilities fee Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy
existing deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and those which provide additional
capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated according to the shares that benefit each group.
Facilities Cost Allocation
Allocation of cost is done on the basis of service population. This method is often used to
determine impacts of residential and commerciallindustrialland uses, recognizing that both
residents and businesses place demands on public facilities. Service population is calculated by
adding to resident population a portion of employees. The weight assigned to employees is
designed to reflect the proportion of employee relative to resident demand for a particular facility.
Each facility considered in this study uses a different employee weight.
Though facilities needs are allocated based on service population, e.g., cost per resident or cost
per ernployee, fees are paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g., fee per
dwelling unit or fee per square foot of building space. Thus, the final step distriblltes total
facilities costs among land use categories based on the population or employment density of each
category. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities required to
accommodate a pa/1icular type of development
1-4
Recht Hallsrath & AssociOli!S
CHAPTER II
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents estimates of growth anticipated in the City of Dublin during the next 30
years, 1995 through 2025, The amount and cost of new public facilities bears a relationship to the
number of new residents and employees resulting from new development because growth
contributes to the demand for public services, In this manner, projections of growth provide a
basis for estimates in subsequent chapters of the public facilities needed to accommodate that
development.
The projections presented here for Eastern Dublin are taken from the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, dated January 7, 1994. The plan
specified different land uses, expressed in terms of acres and numbers of dwelling units or square
feet of commercial/industrial building space based on allowable development densities,
Population and employment projections can then be derived from these estimates of dwelling units
and building space, The City also has provided estimates of existing and potential development
within the existing areas of Dublin. Although remaining opportunities for growth are limited,
inclusion of existing Dublin permits the fees calculated here to be applied citywide. Three
additional issues must be considered in regard to the development projections:
. The public facilities fee program is a financing plan for capital investments that has
a life expectancy of at least several decades. This suggests that the time horizon
for the program should correspond to the anticipated build-out of the City, which
in this case is 30 years based on existing land use designations, Given the long
time horizon, however, we recommend that the City periodically review the
facilities costs and standards, and revise the fee levels accordingly.
. The City's present intention is that certain areas contiguous to its current
boundaries eventually will be assumed within its municipal jurisdiction through
periodic annexations. This a normal process for a city in a growing region such as
the Tri-Valley area. Eventually, all of the Eastern Dublin planning area will be
Recht Hausrath & Associates
II-l
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
annexed to the City. The projections assume only that the areas specified on the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Land Use Map (Fig. 213) excluding the
future study area, will be annexed. Although Doolan Canyon is reviewed in the
General Plan Amendment, it is regarded as a future study area with no present
plans for annexation.
. Development potential of the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area is excluded
from the projections used in this report.
Although projection of new development is a prerequisite for establishing a public facilities fee
program, the exact timing and final amount of that development generally does not have a
significant effect on the calculated fee. New and expanded facilities and fee revenues accrue in
parallel with the pace of new development. For example, to the extent that these projections
overestimate the actual amount of development, fewer public facilities than estimated here will be
needed to accommodate that development. Fewer fee revenues will have accrued to the City to
fund those facilities as well. Thus, the general relationship between new development and need
for facilities remains relatively constant.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The Tri-Valley region has been one of the fastest growing areas in northern California. One of the
last large areas of developable land within the San Francisco Bay Area, the Tri- Valley region is a
desirable location, particularly due to its position along two major interstate highways, Within the
Tri-Valley region, extensive development is projected to occur in Eastern Dublin, as this is the
next large tract of developable land in the progression of growth eastward along 1-580.
Table II. 1 presents estimates of dwelling units and commerciallindustrial building square feet for
1994, and projects growth to the year 2025. Existing and future development is shown for
Eastern Dublin, the remainder of the City, and the two areas combined. The projections are
disaggregated in this manner because certain elements ofthe facilities fee program may apply to
only a portion of the City.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
JI-2
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table 11.1
Development Projections
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Units)
Eastern Dublin
Single Family 52 3,846 3,898
Multiple Family Q 2,990 . 9.990
Total 52 13,836 13,888
Remainder of City
Single Family 5,275 23 5,298
Multiple Family 2.868 80 2,948
Total 8,143 103 8,246
Dublin Citywide
Single Family 5,327 3,869 9,196
Multiple Family 2.868 10.070 12.938
Total 8,195 13,939 22,134
COMMERCIAL and INDUSTRIAL (1,000 Sq.Ft.)
Eastern Dublin
Commercial 0 4,415 4,415
Office 0 3,952 3,952
Industrial Q 1.370 1.370
Total 0 9,737 9,737
Remainder of City
Commercial 1,818 455 2,273
Office 962 208 1,170
Industrial 783 29 ill
Total 3,563 692 4,255
Dublin Citywide
Commercial 1,818 4,870 6,688
Office 962 4,160 5,122
Industrial 783 1399 2.182
Total 3,563 10,429 13,992
Source: St.atc Department of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (1-7-94); Reeht Hausr>lth &. Associates.
Eastern Dublin is presently undeveloped. Most of the land area is at this time used for livestock
grazing and agriculture, with only about 52 existing rural residences. Dwellings in the existing
City currently total 7,700 units. For the purposes of fee calculations, the number of existing
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-3
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
residences shown in the table has been increased by 443 units to include the Hansen Ranch and
Donlan Canyon projects. The Hansen Ranch project was approved under a development
agreement and is not subject to the fee program. The Donlan Canyon project is anticipated to pull
building permits before the fee is effective but occupancy will be after the fee is effective.
Residents of the recently approved homes will be users of existing facilities, and are accordingly
included in the existing facilities service population. . Existing units, including those in Eastern
Dublin plus approved homes, brings the total to 8,195 units. The 1994 dwelling unit estimate is
from the California Department of Finance. City records show that no significant development
occurred during 1994) such that the 1994 figures can be still regarded as current.
According to the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, residential development in Eastern
Dublin is projected to add 13,836 units. Over half of these are in the single family and medium
'density categories with average densities ranging from four to ten units per acre. Residences of
other densities are planned as well, including 10 acre ranchettes, and high density (35 units per
acre) multiple family complexes. Development in the remainder of the City will be limited to 103
units. This figure refers to units not approved as part of the Hansen Ranch and Donlan Canyon
projects mentioned above.
Commercial and industrial space in the existing City presently totals 3,563,000 square feet,
roughly half of which is retail. This figure is based on a commercial and industrial inventory
prepared in 1994. A small amount of employee space associated with County facilities exists in
Eastern Dublin, but is excluded for the purposes of the fee analysis The majority of commercial
and industrial development potential exists in Eastern Dublin, where 9,737,000 square feet are
proposed. In the remaining City 692,000 potential square feet remain unbuilt, but the
predominant use will be commercial.
Not shown in Table II. 1 are roughly L 1 million square feet of public and semi-public land uses
proposed for Eastern Dublin. Most of this applies to proposed Alameda County facilities
including offices, jail expansion, corporation yard and animal shelter. Public agencies are exempt
from paying development impact fees, thus, the development and the corresponding employment
is excluded from the fee analysis. The City is party to an agreement with the County of Alameda
Recht Hausrath & Associates
//-4
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
(dated May 4, 1993) regarding the City's right to control land uses on property owned by the
County or its Surplus Property Authority. Under that agreement, if any of the property is used by
governmental agencies other than the County, such use will be subject to the City's land use
regulations, which would include the public facilities fee. In the event any such property is
proposed for use by governmental agencies other than the County, the City will include such uses
and corresponding employment in the fee analysis.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Cost of public facilities are allocated to new development on the basis of service population.
Calculated separately for each facility, service population is a measure combining residents and
employees to recognize that both residential and commercial land uses contribute to the demand
for public facilities. As a basis for the service population figures presented for each facility in later
chapters, the employment and population projected for Dublin, and Eastern Dublin in particular,
are calculated here.
The amount of population and employment growth can be estimated using occupant density
factors. Residential density is measured in terms of residents per dwelling unit and employment
density is expressed as square feet of building space per employee. Both residential and
commercial/industrial density factors are listed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and are used
here for consistency. Occupant densities are summarized in Table 11.2. The numbers shown
represent averages across the potential tenants of the type of space indicated, and include
vacanCies.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Il-5
Dublin FClC.:ilities Fee Study
Chapter 11
Table 1I.2
Occupant Densities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
Multiple Family
Occupant Density
3.2 Persons/Unit
2.0
COMMERCIALJINDUSTRIAL
Commercial
Office
Industrial
505
260
590
Sq.Ft./Employee
Source: State Department of Finance; City of Dublin; Eastel'll Dublin General Plan
Amendment; Eastern Dub/in Specific Plan (1-7-94); Recht Hausrath &
Associates.
Source: Easte1'l1 Dublin Specific Plan, Table 2A; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table II.3 summarizes the population and employment estimates. Current population is 23,660
residents. This includes residents within the existing City limits plus about 160 residents of the
lmincOl'porated planning area. Proposed residential development citywide is expected to add
another 32.530 residents, for a build-out population of 56,190. Existing employment is
estimated by City staff to be around 10,000. Development citywide will add roughly 28,000. By
build-out) employment is thus estimated at 38,000. Again) this excludes any employment
associated with the proposed County facilities.
Recht Hausrafh & Associates
11-6
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter II
Table 11.3
i Summary of Resident and Employee Growth
! Dublin Facilities Fee Study
;
I 1994 Growth 2025 I
RESIDENTS
Eastern Dublin 160 32,300 32,460
Rest of City 23.500 2J.Q 23.730
City Total 23,660 32,530 56,190
EMPLOYEES
I Eastern Dublin 0 26)200 26,200
Rest of City 10,OQQ l..S.QQ 11,800
City Total lO,OOO 28,000 38,000
Source: City ofDubliu; Recht Hausrath & Associates
DEFINITIONS AND TERMS
As used herein, residential land uses are defined as follows: single family shall mean a dwelling
unit as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC)) as adopted by the City of Dublin) which is
constructed or to be constructed on property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6 or fewer
units per acre; multiple family shall mean a dwelling tU'J.it as defined in the Uniform Building
Code (UBe), as adopted by the City of Dublin, which is constructed Or to be constructed on
property designated in the General Plan or SP for 6.1 or more units per acre.
Commercial land uses are defined as those uses of land for facilities for the buying and selling of
commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities
and services and other space ttses incidental to these activities, Commerciulland uses include
but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores;
banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry
cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general
merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishing and improvement centers; hotels/motels;
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-7
Dublin Facilities ~Fee Study
Chapter 11
laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and
theaters.
Office land uses are defined as those uses of land for general business offices, medical and
professional offtces~ administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesaling or
manufacturing operations, and research and development and other space uses incidental to these
activities. Office land uses include but are not limited to: a.dministrative. headquarters; business
park; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; offices
and office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real
estate offices; research and development; and travel agencies.
Industrial land uses are defined as those uses of land for the manufactme, production) assembly,
a.nd processing of consumer goods and other space uses incidental to these activities. Industrial
land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants;
contractor's storage yards; fabrication; lumber yard; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and
service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and wholesale and heavy
commercial uses.
For a use that is not listed above, the Planning Director will determine which ofthese categories
the use fits under taking into consideration the existing definitions and the land use.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
11-8
CHAPTER III
NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS
EXISTING FACILITIES
The City of Dublin owns II parks totaling 165 acres. Of this amount, 79 acres are classified as
active parkland, while the remaining 86 acres are classified as open space. Active parkland is
further categorized as neighborhood parks or community parks. Neighborhood parks are
typically five to seven acres and are developed to provide space for improvement in relaxation,
play and informal recreation activities in a specific neighborhood or cluster of residential units.
The park improvements are oriented toward the individual recreational needs of the neighborhood
in which it is located Community parks are typically in excess offive acres and offer a variety of
recreational opportunities that attract a wide range of local age groups and interests. The park
improvements are oriented toward facilities that maximize the recreational and leisure experience
of all citizens and attract a broad spectrum of user groups.
Existing facilities are shown in Table III I. The City of Dublin has entered into an agreement with
the Dublin Unified School District for joint use of school playgrounds to increase the availability
of park land Although the City would prefer to develop more parks in existing areas, it is
constrained by the absence of suitable sites, and must settle for the joint school sites to achieve its
desired standards. The availability of school sites during non-school hours adds another 36 acres
to the park availability for a total of liS acres of active parkland.
The City of Dublin recently completed its Parks and Recreation Master Plan to establish policies
for parks and community facilites expansions to serve growth. Similarly, the Eastern Dublin
,Spec[fic Plan and the Easlem DIIh/i/l (;elleral Plan Amendment (GP A) call for development of
several parks. These range fl"om neighborhood squares of two or three acres to larger community
parks upwards of 100 acres. Sizes and locations of the parks have been proposed within the GP A
and currently total 2585 acres The exact amount of park acreage will be determined as Eastern
Dublin develops. If less acreage is needed than anticipated, the community park in the northerly
section of the planning area may be reduced in size. The land surrounding this park is designated
for rural residential, such that a reduction in the park size would not translate into a measurable
increase in urban development.
Recht Hallsrat!J & AssocialCS
IIJ-l
Dub/in Facilities Fee Study
Table m.l
Existing Parks
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Park
Community Parks
Dougherty Hills*
Dublin Sports Grounds / Civic Center
Dublin Swim Center
Heritage Center
Senior Center
Shannon Park
Total
Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek
Dolan Park
KoIb Park
Mape Park
Stagecoach Park
Total
SchoollPark Facilities
Dublin Elementary
Dublin High School
Fredriksen Elementary
Murray Elementary
Nielsen Elementary
Wells Middle School
Total
Total Existing Parks
.Includes only developable acreage for active park use,
Acreage
4.00
35.00
3,00
5.00
0,25
10.00
57.25
8,00
5.00
5.00
3,00
0.75
21. 75
9
4
4
7
6
Q
36
115
SoW'ce: City of Dublin Parks & Recreation Master Plan; Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Chapter III
III-2
Dublin Facilities Fee Sll/(jy
Chapter I JJ
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Park planning is guided by the Quimby Act, which sets forth a legislated park land standard to be
applied to new development. The City further regards the Quimby Act standard of 5.0 acres per
1,000 population as its target for providing parks to existing developed areas. Compared with the
existing population of 23,660 residents, including the 160 existing residents of Eastern Dublin, the
existing park ratio is 4.86 acres per 1,000 residents, including shared school sites. (Although the
adopted standard is 5.0 acres per 1,000 population, the actual current ratio is slightly less due to
two factors: (a) the discrepancy between actual numbers of residents and the projected numbers
under the City's Quimby Act ordinance, Dublin M1Inicipal Code Chapter Y.28, and (b) the
inclusion of two projects, Donlan Canyon and Hansen Ranch, in the current population which
have paid in-lieu fees rather than donating land.) Over time the City expects to acquire additional
park land beyond what is necessary for new development to bring the inventory of parks
associated with the existing population up to 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. Costs to resolve the
existing deficiency are addressed in Appendix A
Dublin's park standard draws the distinction between neighborhood and community parks. The
overall 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents park standard is split between neighborhood parks at 1. 5
acres and community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population, as specified in the City (?fD1Ib1ill
Parks & Recreathm Master Plan. Table II1.2 shows the new development demand for
neighborhood and community parks. Only Eastern Dublin's projected population is applied to
neighborhood parks, excluding the small amount of development anticipated elsewhere in the
City. Given the local service area of neighborhood parks, the need is best considered by subarea,
rather than on a citywide basis. For Eastern Dublin the neighborhood park demand is estimated at
48.5 acres. Community parks, on the other hand, serve the entire City due to their size and
amenities. Accordingly, citywide growth indicates a total need of 113.9 community park acres.
Fee calculations later in this report follow a similar division. The costs for neighborhood parks
calculated in this report apply to Eastern Dublin only, but the community park fee may be charged
citywide. For a further description of the facility standards for neighborhood and community
parks, refer to the Parks and Recreatioll Master Plan.
Resident population is used to determine the required park acreage, consistent with the standards
legislated under the Quimby Act. The benefit of community parks, however, also extends to the
employee population. Lunch hour visits and company recreation activities are two examples of
lJI-3
Recht Ha1lsrath & Associates
f)lIhlill Facilities Fee Stt{((1'
( 'hapter III
business-related park demand The leg.islation authorizing the impact fees calculated in this study,
AB 1600, permits allocation of facilities costs to residential as well as commercial and industrial
land uses, provided a reasonable relationship between growth and facilities demand is provided.
Accordingly, a portion of the park costs are allocated to commercial and industrial land uses as
well as residential units The service population method of cost allocation is used for community
parks in much the same way as it is applied throughout this study. The concept of service
population recognizes the relative levels of demand by both residents and employees, and is
calculated as population plus a percent of employees. By changing the employee weights, the
cost allocation to commercial and industrial land uses can be adjusted according to the demand
specific to a particular facility type.
Table 1Il.2
New Development Park Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Acres per
1,000 Acres
Population Residents Need ed
Neighborhood (Eastern 32,300 1.S 48.5
Dublin Only)
Community (Citywide) 32,530 3.5 113.9
Total 162.4
Sourel: : Cil~' 01' f)uhlin. L'lIs/em f)/Ih1ill (;('II('f'{J! 1'/11I1 .-lll/l.'lIi/IIII!11/: Eos/I.'J'I/ Dllhlin
."jJeCljic 1'/lIJ/ (1-7 -':>4): Rl:cbl I-lausralb 8:. Associates.
Park use by employees was addressed in a 1992 survey of persons employed in nearby
Pleasanton. t The survey presented estimates of resident and non-resident employee park visits per
week, thus offering an indication of how local residency affects employee park use Visits
measured include weekly totals for workdays, evenings and weekends. The results indicate that
resident employees make 0656 park visits per week Non-resident employees make 0 145
Economic Planning. S\'slcms. .-1J/o/\'sis (~I/h(' Cit}.. (~j'l)/('aS(ln/oJ/ N('(;/,('o/io/lllJ/d ."jJ()J"/s .':;/I/,vey, June
1<)')2
Recht Hallsrath & Assm;iales
III--J
DlIh/ill Facilities Fee SllIc(r
Chapter f II
weekly park visits. These visits are assumed here to represent purely workplace related park
use. The difference bet\\'een the twO groups is 0.511 visits per week, and is further assumed
to represent residential demand. If applied to projected growth, 32,530 residents and 28,000
employees, the indicated weekly demand is 16,600 resident and 4,060 employee park visits per
week, as indicated belo\\'.
Resident
DemO/ld
"" 0.511 Week~v I'isits x 32,530 Residellts "" 16,600 Weekly Visits
Resitlcllt
Employmellt _ 0.145 IIVeek~r l'isilS
_ ./ 28,000 Emplo)'t.!cs "" 4.060 WeekY /'isits
1)emoll(/ FIIII)I(~)'ee
If the survey data were directly applied, employee use would account for roughly 20 to 25
percent of total demand. However. the indicated range underestimates the park demand of
non-employed residents. Extension of the estimated resident employee demand to other adult
residents implies similar use by the retired, self-employed and full-time homemakers, as weJl
as youth. As a group. these residents are likely to have more leisure time. and are likely to
visit parks more frequently than full-time employees. Therefore. an employee weight lower
than 20 percent is appropriate for allocating community park costS between residents and
employees. In light of the survey results and its emphasis on employees. a more conservative
employee weight of 15 percent is used in this analysis to estimate community park service
population, These calculations are shown in Table 111.3, and result in a community service
park service population of 36,700 persons. This relationship is applied later to allocate
community park costs between residents and employees.
111-5
Recht Hallsrath & Associates
DlIhlill Facilities Fcc: Stm(l'
Chapter Iff
Table 111.3
Comlllunity Park Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Residents
Employees
Service
Population ( I )
New Development
32,530
28,000
36,700
(I) COlll1l1l1l111\' r';Irks s<:r\'l<':~' popUlalio!l cqu;lls r<.:sidc!l(s plus I s'v" or <:l11plo\'ccs.
Sourcc: Rl'chl H;lusr;l!h & ASS(K.j;lIl'S
P ARK COSTS
The goal of the fee program is to provide sufficient funds to acquire and improve the park
acreage needed. However, the exact amount of fee proceeds required is difficult to project
accurately at this time. Park land can be secured through either dedication or acquisition.
Where large developments are concerned, the land owners can deed portions of development
sites to the City according to the park standards. For smaller developments where it is not
practical to dedicate a park site, it is typical for land owners to pay an in-lieu fee which the
City uses to acquire land elsewhere. Both arrangements are currently implemented under the
City's Quimby Act ordinance, and will apply to Eastern Dublin as well. The amount of park
fees paid and the amount of land acquired will therefore depend on the actual use of
acquisitions versus dedications. This, in turn, will be largely a function of ownership panems
at the time subdivision maps are filed, with dispersed ownership corresponding to increased
reliance on in-lieu fees.
Cost of park land purchased by the City will depend on the underlying or adjacent zoning of
each site acquired. If land \',lIues were uniform throughout the planning area, the proportions
of acquired and dedicated acreage would not affect the level of the park land fees. In Eastern
Dublin, however, the proposed parks are located in areas of differing development potential
and corresponding land values. The cost of park acquisitions is therefore dependent on the
Recht Hallsrath & Associatc:s
fIf-6
Duhlin Facilities Fec Stlfl(I'
Chapter !!!
specific location of the land actually acquired by the City. For the most part, park acreage is
located in or adjacent to medium density or medium high density residential zones, Average
residential densities would be roughly 10 to 20 units per acre, with a corresponding land value
in the range of $250,000 to $3::;0,000 per acre for this level of development. An estimated
average land value of $300,000 per acre is used here to apply to neighborhood park
acquisitions,
Two of three community parks locations (including the city park shown in the Specific Plan)
are located adjacent to medium and medium-high residential zones. The community park in
the northerly area is in a rural residential zone, and is likely to have a land value lower than
parks in the other parts of the planning area. Rural residential land currently has a value of
about $12,000 per acre. For the purposes of fee determination, the community park land cost
is calculated as though all acreage is acquired rather than dedicated. This assumption is made
to insure adequate funding of park land, though the resulting average land cost may be slightly
lower if a significant portion of the land is dedicated, Conversely, a reduction in the size of
the nonherly community park could increase the acquisition cost as relatively fewer acres of
rural residential land are used to meet the park demand, Table III A shows the community
park costs. The three proposed community parks total 183 acres. Of this, 46 acres represent
the northerly community park in the rural residential zone. Averaging the land values results
in a per acre cost of $228,000, This value is applied to the community park acreage required
for new development as well as that purchased 10 remedy the existing deficiency.
Table IliA
Community Park Land Cost
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community
Park Acres
Cost per
Acre
Medium to High Density
Rural Residential
T otallA verage
137
46
183
$300,000
12,000
$228,000
SOlin;.:' FilS/l'm! )lIhlill .\il1'Ci(ic I'IIIII~ 1~<:d1l llallsralh &. ^ssociales
Recht Hallsrath & As.WJciull.!S
IlJ-7
Dllhlin Fuci/itics Fee SlIn(\'
( 'Imptc!l' f f f
Land values presented here were obtained from conversations with local real estate
professionals. and are used for the purpose of fee estimation. Actual values would be obtained
by a formal appraisal 'at the time of acquisition. Significant changes in land use designations,
actual development densities, park locations, and the proportions of land acquired rather than
dedicated also may affect the per acre costs. The City should expect to adjust the fees
periodically to reflect land price appreciation and actual costs of acquisition.
Table III.5 presents the park cost calculation. Park acreage amounts are those required for
neighborhood parks to serve Eastern Dublin and community parks to serve the citywide
projected growth based on appl ication of the service standards. Land values follow from the
forgoing discussion. Park development costs represent landscaping, equipment, utility fees
and frontage improvements. Land costs total $40.5 million for both neighborhood and
community parks. Improvements are based on cost estimates furnished by the City of Dublin, and
add another $229 million for a total of $63.5 million. Again, this excludes any neighborhood
parks needed to serve development outside of Eastern Dublin, or any cost,s to raise the existing
park standard.
Table 111.5
Park Costs
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighbmhood
Parks( I )
Land
Acres Required
Land Cost per Acre
Total Land Cost
485
$300.000
$14,550,000
Improvements
Acres Required
Improvement Cost per Acre
Total Improvement Cost
48.5
$158,400
$7,682,000
Total Pari.. Cost
$22,232,000
(I) NeighborhooJ parks 10 ser\'f.: L1Sl<:1l1 Dublin onlY.
Sourct:: City or Dublin: Recht j-I:11lsruth 8.: Associates
Recht Hmrsrafh & Ass()ciatcs
Community
Parks
Total
I 13.9
$228,000
$25,969,000
$40,5 I 9,000
113.9
$134,000
$15,263,000
$22,945,000
$41,232,000
$63,464,000
fll-8
D/lhlin Fuci/iril!s Fl!l! :':/!n(1'
Chapta f II
COST ALLOCATION
Table III.6 shows the calculation of park costs allocated to residents. The costs are detailed
for land and improvements for both neighborhood and community parks. Again, different
service populations are used for neighborhood and community parks, For neighborhood parks
only the resident population of Eastern Dublin is used, and the neighborhood park costs
calculated here would be applied to the residential uses in the Eastern Dublin planning area
only. The community park costs applies to both residential and commerciallindustrial growth
citywide. Further, the City may utiliz.e both Quimby Act land dedications and AB1600
development impact fees to provide park facilities. The division of park elements will allow
land and improvements to be pro\'ided under separate programs.
Costs for neighborhood pal-ks total $688 per person, including both land and improvements.
Community park costs are $1,124 per person. Considering the total park cost for residential
development in Eastern Dublin, the cost is $1,8] 2 per resident if both neighborhood and
community parks are added together.
fl!-9
Recht HU/lsrath c\" Associ(ff('s
Dublin Facilitics Fi:1.' St/,,~l'
Chapter If I
Tahle 111.6
Park Costs per Resident
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Neighborhood
Parks
Community
Parks
Total
Land
Land Cost
Service Population (I)
Cost per Person
$14,550,000
31 .300
$450
$25,969,000
36.700
$708
$1, 158
1m provemcn ts
Improvement Costs
Service Population (I )
Fee Cost Person
$7,682,000 $15,263,000
3/,300 36,700
$238 $416 $654
$688 $1,1 24 $1,812
Total Cost per Resident
(I) Ne\\' de\l.~I"pll1cnl sCr\'icc p"pulali"ll. Ncighh"rhooJ park scr\'icc population applies to
I:aslcrn Duhlll1 rcsid<.:nli.d gr()\\'lh "nl\,. COlllmunil~' park SL'r\',CC populalilln appli<.:s
<.:il\wid<.: al1d cquals r<.:~idL'nts plus 15 pcrccl1tot' cmplo\'ccs.
Sourcc: Cil \. o( Duhlin: Rccht Hausr.llh 8.: AsSOl'i:lIl'S
Community park costS are also allocated to commercial and industrial land uses according to
employment. Table III. 7 applies the 15 percent employee weight to the per resident
community park costs presented in Table III.6. Combining land and improvements, the per
resident costs are $1.124. Community parks per employee costs are thus $168.
Rccht HOllsrath & Associotcs
JIl-IO
D/(h/ill Focilitics Fee .\'/lil\' Chapter f II
Table 111.7
Community Park Cost per Employee
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Cost per Employee Cost per
Person Weiu:ht Employee
Land $708 15% $106
Impro\'enlents 416 15% 62
Total $1,124 $168
SllllfCL': RL'cht llatlsralh & AssociatL'S
Rechl Ho/(sruth (~, Associuh's JIf-l J
CHAPTER IV
COMMUNITY AND RECREATION FACILITIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
The City of Dublin currently operates three community facilities: a community center, a senior
center and an aquatic center, all located in the developed portion of the City. As the City grows
in size, it plans to add five more facilities These include another community center, a recreation
center, a community theater, another aquatic center and a senior center to replace the existing
Tahle IV.I
Existing and Proposed Community and Recreation Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Building I
Square Feet
Existing Facilities
Community Center 12,178
Senior Center 6,600
Aquatic Center -NA-
Total 18,778
Proposed Facilities
Community Center 28,000
Recreation Center 35,000
Community Theater 16,000
Senior Center (I) 5,400
Aquatic Center -NA-
Total 84,400
Build-out Total 103, 178
(1) Existing sl:nior eentl:r is to he replaced ",ith Ihe
proposl:d ne\\' facility IOlaling 12,000 squure lee\.
Spuc<: sh,,"'n is nl:! uddilion.
Sourc(': ('il\' or Dublin f'lIrk lint! geLTelllill1l MIISler ['filII.
Recht Ha7lsrath &- Associates
IV-I
Dlfhlin Fucilitlcs Fee .\'t/l((1'
Chapter IV
one. At present, the City of Dublin's senior center is located in a leased surplus school building.
Eventually the lease will be allowed to expire, and the senior center will be moved to a new, larger
building owned by the City. For a further description of these facilities, refer to the Parks and
Recreation/v1aste/' IJlml
Building space is summarized in the top portion of Table IV.l. Together, the existing community
and senior center buildings total 18,778 square feet of building space, excluding the aquatic
center. Proposed facilities are shown in the bottom p011ion of the table. To reflect the
replacement of the existing senior center, only the net increase is shown for the proposed senior
center. The proposed senior center is planned to be 12,000 square feet in size, or 5,400 square
feet more than the existing facility it is to replace. Excluding the aquatic centers, community
buildings citywide are proposed to total 103,178 square feet by build-out.
FACILITIES STANDARDS AND NEEDS
Cost calculations for comlllunity buildings and the aquatic center are handled separately A
cit)'\vide perspective is taken tC)J" allocation of community buildings costs to new development.
Activities taking place at a paJiicular building can benefit residents and employees citywide,
regardless of the specific location of their place ofresidence or employment. On the other hand,
like the neighborhood parks discussed in the previous chapter, the new aquatic center's area of
benefit is assumed to be Eastern Dublin only.
The service population for community centers is calculated to equal residents plus 5 percent of
employees. Recht Hausrath & Associates has found in other cities that it is not uncommon for
local businesses to make use of community buildings for business gathering as well as company
recreation events. No local survey data was available to determine employee use by businesses,
however. Accordingly, a conservative employee allocation is used here. Table IY.2 shows
service population for the existing city growth from new development and build-out. New
development is further separated into Eastern Dublin and the remainder of the City. As noted,
community buildings serve residents and employees citywide, whereas the new aquatic center will
be of benefit to Eastern Dublin only
Recht Halfsrath & A.\'SocIU1L'S
11/-2
DlIhlin Focilities Fe!! St/l{zr
Chopter IV
Table IV.2
Community Centers Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Residents
Service
Employees Population( 1 )
Existing
23,660
1 0,000
24,200
New Development
Eastern Dublin
Remainder of City
Total
Build-out Total
32,300 26,200 33,600
230 1,800 300
32,530 28,000 33,900
56,190 38,000 58,100
(I) l'omnlllI1it\. l'<.:n\t:rs s<':l'\'i<.:e popul[ltio\1 equals r<.:siJents plus S'X, or .;mployees.
Source: Cit\' or Dublin: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Table IV.3 details the calculations of community buildings service standard and demand for
facilities allocated to new development For the purposes of cost calculations the community
buildings are combined. Preliminary constnlction costs per square foot are projected to be the
same for the theater, community, recreation, and senior centers Therefore, facilities costs can be
allocated to new development without considering the service standard for each facility type
separately.
Once the Parks and Recreulio/l A4uSli!/' 1110/l is implemented, the City will have constructed
community buildings totaling to 84.400 square feet, net of the existing senior center. Including
existing buildings, community facilities will total 103,178 square feet as shown in the top half of
Table IV. 3 . Compared with the citywide projected service population of 58, I 00 persons, the
facility standard is estimated to be 1.78 square feet per person by build-out Facility requirements
to serve growth are shown in the bottom half of Table IV.3. Applying the build-out service
standard to the 33,900~ person service population growth indicates a demand for 60,300 square
feet of community building space arising from new development
Recht Hallsrath & Associotcs
IV-3
Dllhllll Focililin h't' SI/1{~),
('hapla IV
Table IV.3
Community Buildings Service Standards and New Development Demand
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Ser\'in~ Standard
Community Building SqFt.
Build-out Service Population (I)
Service Standard
103,178
58,100
1.78
SqFI.
I'l.:rs\ 111S
Sq.F1. pl.:r Pl.:rSOll
New Development Facility Demand
Service Population Growth ( 1 )
Service Standard
Requirement to Serve Growth
Pl.:rSOllS
33,900
1.78
60,300
Sq. Fl. per PerSOll
Sq.FL
( I) l'l\111IlllIIIlI\' L'<:I1ll.:rs s..:r\'i..:..: 1'''1'1I1<lli''ll ..:qll<lls rl.:sidl.:ll\S plus s'y., "t' l.:mplo~u::s.
Source: CilY or Duhlin: Red1! HallSnllh & Associates
The total cost of community facilities to serve growth is calculated in Table IV.4. Construction of
community buildings is estimated to cost $200 per square foot. For the 60,300 square feet
required to serve gro\vth, the cost to ne\\! development is $12 06 million for community buildings.
As mentioned above, the City of Dublin also proposes to construct an additional aquatic center to
serve the added population in Eastern Dublin. The new center is projected to cost $2 I million,
and is allocated entirely to the new development in Eastern Dublin Combining community
buildings with the aquatic center results in a community facilities cost of 14.16 million.
I}/--I
Recht Hallsralh & AssocW1CS
DlIhlin FucilillCS Fe!.! Slud,'
( 'hupler IV
T~\hle IV.4
Community and Recreation Facilities Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Buildings Cost
Requirement to Serve Growth
Cost per Square Foot
Facilities Cost
60,300
$200
$12,060,000
Aquatic Center Cost
$2, I 00,000
Total Facilities Cost
$14,160,000
(I) COlllillllllil\ l\:illers sL'nicc population equals n;siJenls
plus 5'Y., or (;lIlplo:'ees.
Source': Cil\ or Dublin; Recht Hausralh & Asslll:iates
COST ALLOCATION
Table IV.5 allocates the cost impacts for community buildings and aquatic centers to residents and
employees. The community buildings cost of $12.06 million allocated to new residents equals
$356 per person, based on the citywide growth in service population. In calculating service
population for community centers, residents are weighted at 100 percent and employees are
weighted at 5 percent to reflect the use of community facilities by persons employed locally. The
cost per employee is $ 18. The aquatic center costs are assigned to Eastern Dublin only and total
$2.1 million. Applied to the Eastern Dublin service population growth of 33,600, this equals a
per resident cost of $63, and a per employee cost of $3.
'IV-5
Rechl HUllsralh & AssociOles
DlIhlin Facililies Fee SII/(II'
Tahle IV.5
Community Facilities Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Commul1lty
Buildings
(Citywide)
Cost pel' Resident
Total Cost
Service Population Growth (I)
Cost Per Resident
Cost per Employee
Employee Weight
Cost per Employee
( .hopla / V
Aquatic Center
(Eastern Dublin Only)
$12,060,000
33,900
$356
5%
$18
{1)
Communit\' l\:nler~ ~er\'iee population equals n:~idenl~ plLl~ S'X, of emplo~'ee~,
Source: Cil\' of Duhlin: Recht H.lllsralh & Associales
Recht Halfsralh & Associoles
$2, 100,000
33,600
$63
5%
$3
/l/-6
CHAPTER V
LIBRARIES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Library services are provided to Dublin residents by the Alameda County Library System with
partial funding from the City of Dublin. The current 15,OOO-squarewfoot library opened in 1979
and was financed by General Obligation Bonds. The site of the Library is owned by the COlU1ty
and is leased to the nonprofit Alameda COlU1ty/Dublin Library Corporation. The Corporation
owns the building and leases it to the County in exchange for anntlal rent payments which are
used to retire the bonds. When the bonds are completely paid off in 1999) the title will vest with
the County.
Existing and proposed library facilities are summarized in Table V.1. The existing Dublin
library building is 15,000 square feet in size and contains 83,000 volumes. An expansion of
Table V.l
Library Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I Building I
Sq.Ft. Volumes
Existing 15,000 83,000
Proposed
Expansion of Existing 7,000 0
Eastern Dublin Library 20~OOO 40.000
T atat 27,000 40,000
Build-out Total 42,000 123,000
Source: City of Dublin; Recht Hausrath & Associates
Rr;.cht Hausrath & Associates
V-I
Duhlin Fctcililies Fcc SI((((r
('hapla V
anticipated at this time, There will also be a new library constructed in Eastern Dublin. The
existing facility will continue to operale as the main library and house the majority of the volumes
maintained in the City As with the existing library, the new building will be constructed and
stocked using local funds and will be operated by the Alameda County Library System. The new
library is proposed to be 20,000 square feet and contain 40,000 volumes. For a fUl1her
description of these facilities, refer to the Lihraty Flall/lillg Task [.fJ/'(.'e Reporl (April 1993)
FACILITY STANDARDS AND NE\V DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
A citywide approach is used to calculate facility standards and allocate library costs, recognizing
that Dublin libraries function as part of a regional system. Allocation of library costs to new
development is done 011 the basis of citywide service population. The build-out population is used
as the basis for determining library service standards so that the same standards will be applied to
both existing and new development
Information is available to indicate the relative benefit of library use for residents and employees
In a recent study, the Santa Clara County Library System conducted a benefit analysis to provide
a basis for county service area library assessments. Table V.2 extends the Santa Clara analysis to
this study. "Benefit units" in the table refer to the measurements used in the Santa Clara analysis,
and are expressed here per resident or employee. Except for retail, the land use categories in the
Santa Clara study differ from those used here, The ones shown in the table have been assigned to
relate business activities to types of space. The calculations in the table estimate total library
benefit, and determine the portion received by businesses to be 22 percent of residential demand,
The employee weight for library services based on the Santa Clara study is supported by the
observations reported for the Fremont main library. At the Alameda County Library's main
facility in Fremont, 33 percent of the reference staff is assigned to the business reference desk.
Also, business desk reference questions amount to 20 percent of the library's total
1-"-2
Recht HOlfsrath & As.mciutt!.\
Dllhli// Facilities Fee SIIIL(l'
Chapler V
Taull' V.2
Resident and Employee Library Benefits
Dublin Facilities Fce Study
Benefit Units Build-out Total
per Resident Residents Benefit Relative to
or Employee or Employees Units Residential
Residential (I) 0.300 56,190 16,900 100%
Co III lllcrc ill I & Industrial
Commercial 0.104 13,200 1,406
omce (2) 0,107 19,700 2,100
Industrial (3) 0.067 5,100 300
Total 38,000 3,800 22%
,
I) Bcnclils per resident represents un ll\Wilge lll' sillgk ullllllllllt iplc rillllil~' units.
2) The llon-rduil husiness elllegmy i'rlll1l till: S(llllil CI;iW slud~' is lIpplied Illulliee uses.
3) The lrunsporlalioll lUld 1IIilili~'s cilkg.or~' i"<1I1l1h<: Sanlll Clar;, slud\' is uppli<:d (0 induslrialllses.
Source: SUllla CIlIrll COlllll\' l.ihrar\ !i"I"'!!!. Isse.lSIII"I/! .II/IIII'sis: I{<:chl IlulIsrnlh & Associates.
The service population for libraries is shown in Table V.3. Employees are weighted at 22 percent
to reflect the approximate library demand attributable to local businesses. By year 2025, library
service population is projected to total 64,600 persons citywide.
Recht Hallsrath (\. Associates
V-3
n/lh/in Facilities Fcc ,\'It{((r
Chapler V
Tahle V.3
Library Service Population, 2025
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Residents
Employees
Total (I) I
Existing
Ne\\! development
Total
23,660
32.530
56,190
10,000
28,000
38,000
25,900
38,700
64,600
(I) l.ihr:lJ'\ S<':I'\'lCC popul,ltiol1 cquals n:sidcl11s plus 22';;', oj' cmplo~'ct:s.
Sourcc: Citl' of Duhlin: Rccht HausJ'alh & Associates
Table VA. shmvs the calculation of library service standards and the demand for facilities
allocated to new development. The improvements planned \vould bring the libraries serving
Dublin to a total of 42,000 building square feet and 123,000 volumes. Compared with the build-
out population of 64,600 persons, including residents and weighted employees, the per person
standards are projected to be 065 square feet of library building space and 1.90 volumes. New
development is projected to add 38,700 persons. As shown in the bottom half of the table, the
resulting demand associated with growth equals 25,200 square feet of building space and 73,500
volumes.
Rechl Hal1srath & Associotl.!s
1/-4
DlIhlin Facilities Fee Stl/(fr
Chapter t'
Tahle VA
Library Service Standards
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Buildings
~
Volumes
Service Stnndnrd
Sq.Ft. or Volumes
Build-out Service Population ( I )
Service Standard
42,000
64,600
0.65 Sq. I:!. p~'r
I '<.:rSO/l
123,000
64,600
1.90 Volull1es per
PerSO/l
New Dcvelopmcnt Facility Demand
Service Population GrO\vth
Service Standard
Requirements to Serve Growth
38,700
0.65
25,200 Sq.Ft
38,700
1.90
73,500 V oIUIl1l:S
0) Library seJ'\'jee popll!(I1io!1 l,tju(lls rcsl\k/lls plus 21')1" or ell1plo~'ees.
Source: Cil\' oj' Dublin: Reclu H<llIsr:lIh 8.: Assol'i:lll'S
Cost of the library requirements to serve growth are shown in Table V,S. Building construction
per square foot is estimated at $196. This amount is an average based on $212,50 per square foot
for the 20,000-square-foot new library and $150 per square foot for the 7,000-square-foot
existing library expansion. Applied to the overall 25,200 square feet required results in a cost of
$4,939,000 for new development Volumes average $25 each. All costs were supplied by the
City of Dublin The 73,500 volumes needed to serve growth will cost $1,838,000. Combined,
the cost oflibrary facilities to accommodate growth is $6,777,000.
Recht Hallsmth & Associates
V-5
D/lhlin FocillliL's Fee .)'1/,,(1'
Chapler V
Table V.5
Library Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Lihnlry Buildings
Square Feet Required
Cost per Square Foot ( I )
Building Cost
25,200
$196
$4,939,000
Volumes
Volumes Required
Cost per Volume
Volume Cost
73,500
$25
$1,838,000
Library Total Cost
$6,777,000
(I) c'(\Sll'c:r ~quarc: 1('01 is 1\ l:ighted ,l\'l:ragl: or lhl: pr(\l'osed
~':-;l'anSl(\n or the: eXisting library and the lWI\' EasleI1l Dublin
lihrary. Costs indllde rUlllishings
Sonn::l:: City nrUublin: kl:chtllallswlh & Asso.:;i:lleS
COST ALLOCATION
Table Y.6 shows the cost allocation to new residents and employees, The total $6,78 million cost
for buildings and volumes allocated to new residents equals $175 per person, based on the library
service population as calculated, Employees are weighted at 22 percent to reflect business use of
libraries, with a resulting cost per employee of $39.
Recht Ha/fsralh & Associolcs
V-o
J)lIhli" Facilitics Fa Stlli(r
Tahle V.6
Library Cost Allocation
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Fee per Resident
Total Cost
Service Population Growth (I)
Fee Per Resident
('hapter I"
$6,777,000
38,700
$175
Fee per Employee
Employee Weight
Fee per Employee
(1) Libwr\' scn'ie<: population ,,'eighls resid<:nls lit 100
pen::<:nl unci employees u111 percent.
Source: Cit" of Duhlin; Recht H,1l1snllh & Associates
Recht HOllsralh & AssociolCS
22%
$39
V-7
CHAPTER VI
CIVIC CENTER
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Following incorporation in 1982, the City of Dublin leased commercial space for government
operations. Later, the City acquired a site for city offices and carried through with the completion
of what is now the City of Dublin Civic Center. Police, administrative offices and council
chamber are housed in the complex
Existing and proposed administrative space is shown in Table VI.I. As described in the Civic
Center Programming Document approved by the City Council in November 1986, the Civic
Center building was sized to accommodate an estimated resident population of 40,000 in the year
2005 and totals 53,000 square feet. Not all of this space is presently utilized. Administrative
space of 4,580 square feet remains unimproved and is presently used for storage. The
unimproved administrative space will be finished to accommodate the incremental demand for
administrative services.
Table Vl.1
Civic Center Facilities
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Building
Square Feet
Cost per
Square
Foot
Total Cost
Existing Space (1)
53,000
-NA-
-NA-
Proposed Improvements
Administrative Wing
Police \\ling
Parking Lot
Total
4,580
1,800
$5800
$58 00
$265,600
104,400
$75,000
$445,000
(1) Existing space ligure inclmks unimproyed areu in udminislmliyc und police wings.
Source: City ofExisling SlXlce rlgure includes unimpw\'eJ ureu in uJl11inislruli\'l;~ wmg.
Hechl HOlfsrulh & Associules
n-l
DuMill Foe/lilies Fee .\'1/1(11'
('hopla J,-f
New development will be charged only for the costs of the additional improvements required to
serve growth These are also shown in Table VI. I. Improvements to the administrative wing are
estimated to cost $5800 per square foot for a total of $265,600 In addition to improving the
remainder of the adnlinistrative wing, renovations to the police wing are anticipated as well to
serve a growing level of police activities. Police wing renovations will apply to 1,800 square feet
of the department's space and will cost $5800 per square foot for a total of$104,400 Also,
renovations to the Police Department's secured parking lot are needed at a cost of $75,000.
Total cost of Civic Center improvements associated with growth is 445,000. Unit cost estimates
were supplied by the City of Dublin
COST ALLOCATION
Costs of the Civic Center improvements associated with growth are allocated to new development
on a service population basis. Service population of growth is shown in Table V1.2. For the
purposes of allocating Civic Center costs between residential and commercial and industrial land
uses, employees are assigned a weight of 25 percent to reflect business demand on police and
administrative activities The 25 percent allocation is a professional standard used in fee
documentation and reflects relative hours of business activity.
Table V1.2
Civic Center Service Population
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Service
Residents Employees Population
New development
32,530
28,000
39,500
(1) Ci\'ic l\:nlcr scr\'icc popullllion cqu:ds n:sid<.:nls plus 25')1,. o!"
e1l1plo\'<':<':s.
Source: City of Dublin; Recht 1-l:lusr:lIh & Associates
Civic Center costs are allocated to service population in Table VI3 Civic Center costs of
$445,000 spread across the 39,500 person service population results in a cost of $11 per person.
With residents weighted at 100 percent the fee per resident is also $] ] per person. Employees are
weighted at 25 percent resulting in a cost of $3 per employee
Rechl HClIIsmth & Assoc;UICS
J"1-2
I
[Juhlin Facilities Fee St/l((r Chapter U
;
Table VI.3
I Civic Center Cost per Person
I Dublin Facilities Fee Study
I
I
Facilities Cost (I) $445,000
New Development Service Population (2) 39,500
Cost per Resident $11
Employee Weight 25%
Cost per Employee $3
(II Incllldc:s n:llo\'alioIlS "r adminislruli\'c: and p"liet: \\'ings,
(2) ('''"Ie Cc:nlcr sC:r\'iee p"pulalion ~'qllals rcsidc:nls plus 25'X, or
<.:ml)I,,\~'c:s"
Sourcc: Cil\' or Dublin; Rccht Hausrmh & Associates
I
I
Recht Hausrath & Associates VI-3
CHAPTER VII
CALCULA TION OF FEES AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENT A TION
Chapter III through Chapter VI described public facilities owned by the City of Dublin, the
requirements to serve growth, and new facilities costs. Each chapter also established a service
population measurement reflecting the relative demand of residents and employees. Costs of
facilities were then allocated to new development on the basis of service population. These costs,
in turn, form the basis for the public facilities fees subject to adoption by the Dublin City Council.
This chapter reviews facilities costs to accommodate growth, summarizes per resident and per
employee costs, and calculates the public facilities fees on new development necessary to fully
fund those costs.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Table VII. I summarizes the cost of facilities to serve growth. The costs are further divided into
two groups. First are those applied citywide. Celiain facilities, namely community parks,
community buildings, libraries and the civic center, are regarded as expansions of citywide
systems which benefit both the existing and eastern areas of Dublin These costs can therefore be
applied to new development, whether in the existing city or in Eastern Dublin. Neighborhood
parks and the Eastern Dublin aquatic center are designed to serve growth in that area only. Since
these facilities have a local area of benefit, their costs are allocated to Eastern Dublin only
Costs allocated citywide are estimated to total $60.5 million. These amount to $1,666 per
resident and $228 per employee Specific to Eastern Dublin, neighborhood park and aquatic
center costs total $24.3 million. Corresponding allocations are $751 per resident and $3 per
employee, and would be added to the citywide costs. Employees are allocated only a small
portion of the aquatic center and none of the neighborhood parks, explaining the small per
employee cost for Eastern Dublin only.
Recht Hallsrath & Associales
V/1-1
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter Vll
Table VII.l
Summary of Costs to Serve Growth
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Costs to Cost per Cost per
Serve Growth Resident Employee
Citywide
Community Parks, Land $25,969,000 $708 $106
Community Parks, Improvements 15,263,000 416 62
Community Buildings 12,060,000 356 18
Libraries 6,777,000 175 39
Civic Center 445.000 11 1
Total $60,514,000 $1,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Only
Neighborhood Parks, Land $14.550)000 $450 0
NeighborhOOd Parks, Improvements 7,682,000 238 0
Aquatic Center 2.] 00.000 63 1
Total $24,332,000 $751 $3
Eastern Dublin Total
Citywide Costs $60)514,000 $1,666 $228
Eastern Dublin Costs 24.332.000 751 "
.J.
Total $84,846,000 $2,417 $231
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
COSTS BY LAND USE TYPE
Costs per resident and employee are extended to land use types in Table VII.3. Occupant
densities, persons per residential unit or employees per 1,000 square feet) are shown in the top
row. These are applied to the per resident and per employee costs for each faCility category to
arrive at the fee per dwelling unit or 1 )000 square feet ofcommerciallindustrial space.
Citywide fees per lmit are $5,331 fOT single family and $3)32 for multiple family units. Eastern
Dublin has additional charges for neighborhood parks and the proposed aquatic center which
Recht Hausrath & AS$ociates
Vll-2
Dublin FClcilities Fee Study
Chapt~r VII
bring the fees to $7,735 and $4,834 for the respective unit types, New residential development in
the existing City would also be responsible for neighborhood park mitigations) though these
would be done separately tmder the City's Quimby Act ordinance (see discussion at end of
chapter).
Commercial/industrial facilities fees would be proportional to occupant density, with industrial
~he lowest and office the highest. Citywide, facilities fees per 1,000 square feet range from $387
for industrial to $877 for office space. Development in Eastern Dublin is also charged for a
small portion of the proposed aquatic center, bringing the range of impacts for this part of the
City to $392 to $889 per 1,000 square feet for commercial/industrial uses.
The potential fee reveUl.les from new development would total $84.901 million. Total facilities
costs allocated to new development are $84.846 million. The small difference ($55,000)
between the projected revenues and the costs will be used to offset the cost of the justification
studies and the administrative guidelines, and staff time devoted to fee collection. Further, the
exact amount of fees collected will depend on the exact amount of park land dedicated as
opposed to acquired through dedication.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake ammal and longer-term (perhaps five-year) reviews of its
facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that the assumptions on
which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make adjustments for inflation.
The longerwterm. reviews will allow for detailed re-examination of all assumptions such as
growth forecasts, development trends, facilities needs, annexation policies, inflation, and land
costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range public facilities financing to the City's changing
needs,
The actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will involve
adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility costs and accounting for fee
revenues. In addition, City staff will be frequently confronted with particular situations in which
they must interpret the program's criteria and render special judgments. The City may adopt
administrative gUidelines to provide staff and the development community with guidance
regarding ongoing operation of the program, The guidelines would assist in maintaining
consistent standards regardless of City personnel turnover Or updates to the fee program.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VlIw]
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapler 'VI!
The City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building permit
issuance for commercial and industrial development, and at the time of occupancy for residential
development. Once the City has adopted a capital improvement program for all the facilities
addressed, the fees will be collected at the time of building pernlit. Fees will only be collected
on developed land if the existing structures are being expanded or otherwise modified to allow
more intense use of the property than its land use designation at the time of payment of any
previous fees.
Fee revenues for each type of facility will be collected in a separate trust account, and interest
earned on fund balances will be credited to that account. Funds will be transferred from that
account to specific accounts for construction as needed to finance the facilities required to serve
new development. The City anticipates using its fivewyear capital im.provement program to
indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities to be funded by the public facilities fees.
F or those funds unexpended or unc.ommitted after five years, the City should demonstrate a
reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged) otherwise
the City shall return the fees to the current owners at the time of refund (Government Code
Section 60001 (4) (e)).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARK FACILITIES
FEE PROGRAM AND QUIMBY ORDINANCE
As discussed in Chapter III (page 111.6). the City has adopted an ordinance (Dublin. Municipal
Code Chapter 9.28) based On the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) regarding
dedication of park land by new development, The ordinance)s provisions are applicable only
when land is subdivided for residential development. At that time, the City may require the land
owner to either dedicate land for park services or pay an inwlieu fee instead. The amount of land
dedicated or fee paid is based on the estimated residential population of the proposed
development and provision of park land equal to the City's standard of5,0 acres per l~OOO
population.
The City would implement the park facilities fee documented in this study in conjunction with
the existing Quimby Act ordinance. While Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fees are
imposed when land is subdivided, public facilities fees are imposed later in the development
process, when ~uilding permits are issued (or at occupancy). Ifa parcel of land has already been
Recht Hausrath & Associates
VIJ-4
Dublin Facililies Fee Study
Chapter r7J
charged with a Quimby park land dedication or in-lieu fee, the City would need to dednct the
park land component frdm the total public facilities fee shown in Table VII-2.
This deduction to the public facilities fee for land subject to the Quimby Act ordinance would be
equal to the land component of the parks fee only, not the park improvement component (see
Table VII-2). The Quimby Act ordinance is based only on the park land requirements of new
development, not the cost of park improvements, so the deduction only equals the fomier and not
the latter. For development of Eastern Dublin, the Quimby deduction would equal the sum of the
community and neighborhood park land fees, In the remainder of the City, the deduction would
equal only the community park land fee because the neighborhOOd park fee is not applied outside
of Eastern Dublin.
Some examples illustrate how the impact fees, park land dedications) and Quimby deductions
would be applied in different parts of the City under different options to pay in-lieu fees or
dedicate land. Three scenarios are shown Table VII.2 for a single family residence. The first
two scenarios pertain to Eastern Dublin. In the first) the developer elects to dedicate land for all
park acreage, and onl)' pays fees for the park development costs. In the second scenario, the
developer does not dedicate land) but pays the in-lie\.t fee. The third scenario would apply to the
existing portions of the City. Here, the City's Quimby Act ordinance would apply to the
neighborhood park requirements, and the developer would either dedicate land or pay the in-lieu
fee under that requirement. Impact fees would be charged only for community parks.
Table VIL3 shows sample fee calculations for single and multiple family residences in Eastern
Dublin and the infill areas. When calculating fees, cost impacts for all facilities are added
together to arrive at the total charges. If land has been or will be dedicated, the value of tho land
dedicated will be applied as a credit to arrive at a net fee amount due. Note that neighborhood
parks in-lieu fees levied tU1der the Quimby Act apply only to the infiIl areas. Thus, in calculating
the facilities impact fees levied under Government Code Section 66000, the neighborhood park
component is excluded for intilI areas.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
r71-5
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter VII
Table VlI.2
Park Impact Fee per Single Family Residence
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Eastem Dublin Development
Dedicate Park Pay Park Land
Land InwLieu Fees
Infill
Develonment
Community Park Land 1 $0 $2,266 $2,266
Community Park Improvements 1,331 1 )331 1 )331
Neighborhood Park LandI 0 1,440 -NA-
Neighborhood Park Improvements W 762 wNAw
Total $2,093 $5,799 $3,597
'Assumes the amount ofthe Quimby Act fee per Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 is equal to the public
facilities fee.
Source: R.echt Ha\lsrath & Associates
Recht Hausrath & Associates
v71-6
Duhlin Facilities Fee Study
Chapter fill
Eastern Dublin Eastern Dublin Infill Development lnfill
Single Family Unit Multi Pamily Unit Single Family Unit Development
Multi Family Unit
Community Parks, Land $2,266 $1,416 . $2,266 $1,416
Community Parks, 1.331 832 1,331 832
Improvements
Community Buildings 1,139 712 1,139 712
Libraries 560 350 560 350
Civic Center 35 22 35 '22
Neighborhood Parks, Land 1,440 900 0 0
Neighborhood Parks,
Tmprovements 762 476 0 0
Aquatic Center 202 126 0 0
Total Fees Due $7,735 $4.834 $5,331 $3,332
Dedicate Park Land
Community Parks, Land <2,266> <1,416> <2,266> <1,416>
Neighborhood Parks, Land <1,440> <'900> <0> <0>
Total Fees Due $4,029 $2,518 $3,065 $1,916
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table VII.3
Example Fee Calculations Including Park Dedication
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Recht Haus-ruth & Associates
VII-7
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
~
Q)"O
rn .8
::JCf.l
~]~
Q....:i(/)
> >-. a;
,C; .-
~ ~-=
~l1):=
co= ~ g
E-~f,.I.,
a.s
].g
o
'"
<U
::)
"d
Iii
~
]
'"
:I
]
"'Cl
le
(;
'8
I
u
<f.>
IV
;:J
1
~
"';;
.~
:os
'"
~
ti
v
~
~
Q
CJ"
en
.:::>
.:::>
0_
-
t
c..
'ti':
8
b 83
p,;:...
...... 0
en .......
OP,
us
w
.11.,0 C!
'S'~ N
]~
.?:.
....
'8
o
b
;:- ~ 2;. C'J
B bJ).~ ('<j
u ,$ iij
rn~
l.......
8.~
t::llIIIIIi
~. ~
8~
"@ 0
.5 0'\
II'> lrI
:I
]
o lrl ....... '-0 lrlJ t"--
OOO('f")\C) QO
............ f'+'i
E.oo;; v.t
o 0 onl an
f..-;
00 NjN
..... '""l
~
o 0 \01 1,0
v.t
o 0 ("<")1 t4
O\O\OIN
Ot'-Sj~
~..q-
""" ...r
~
:;: (Cl ~l ~
~"t-N'
;;; ~
000 Mj_
l.()M\Oln
-.:tM t-
O'\) ~
N Nij"'!.'f'
('f')Otfi
M lrI go
M - "'!.'f'"'
(,'7 61'}
..... "d"'jll'l
('<101'1")
('f')Vt'
lrI" N r---'"
w ~
\0 -lr---
I.C lrI .....
1.Ot--."d"'
.......... N....
~ V}
~
~ Q)
k1 ~
.01 ]~a
c:: Q., ....:i .....
i:tl] (/)
...J _~ b lLKf :5 ~
rnrA';.p =I-JI-; Q 0
'1-. ~~:s O~~ E- U
,- ~ Q" ~ = "l;:j ""0 ~ = ~ ,S
5 ceo ~ :ggg"5 38ii
Cl 'R 'i:! ";::::I ttJ Q = oS -e u = (I) t::l
..... Gol S;:l:3 CIJo-Q 00 o-Q"el d
t€ :g ~ S E'~.sa ~ S ~ ~'~ ~ E'~ ~
13- ~ ... = E..o ~ ~ Co)._ .- = t-' G,j 0 I;I'J
8.~888~u ;~z~ iu&5
au [;l;;/ ~
~ 0
S ~
o
~~$~~If:::
~t'l ....... CIO
~ ~
:'@ ~
~ lrI
v
j
~ ~ ~ !=-: '-01 ~
N-- "'!.'f'
~ v.t
\0 t'l 00 0\ r<'"ll go
O\O-M N
~ ~
;:; ~ Sj s.; ~I ~
"'1'" 00 r--. t'<l ('I';
-- ffl
(.;'7 E,l':t
1.0 - 0'\ 0 lrlj .....
\OM("')I.OM~
NM--V'\ ~
N^ .,.....,.,.^ """"",f"'I V)
V} E.o':t
00 \0 \0 lrl .....II,C)
o -- l.r. r-.. - I.C
t"-">l-M....... ~
€.9 ...;
Ef:l-
Recht Hausrath & Associates
t-- I.I')IN
00 ~
('fj t:;
t- Nlt;\
t-_QO
co QO
VJ
M \0100
l.n In
"t 'V
Ef:l-
IX) ('1')1.....
~ ~
V}
... e
u <:;>
s;l,a
.:a ...
'S 0
:1-
t'l:i
~~
"";ll.c
SI;f)
\05
...
<8 lil
~C::
~]
~8
-~
~-=
5'~
011
~l
.9 "i}
't'J"I;;I
~~
"~&
ij e
'On.
ea
""1l
8'n
~~
o ~
]8
o 0
~~
1=1....
8 ~
2]
o 0
~~
o 1:1
"58
noo
~~
~.-
8~
'~'e
-B:I
:p~
~~
'~l
.sP ~
~21
~ CI
'0-
0:1";;
1a ~ ~
u >. ~
IE ~ .S
~~ ,,~
ob.E!- ~ fa
.~ - U"I;;I
"310....
- <;:;; ~ t 16
.s G.l 0.. c..
o ~ e,~ 8
~ en ~ So
,.-.
.....
'-'
~
>..
..!2
~
~
'"i)
4:!
~
:;;l
:r
~
.!1
'g
1ll
'':::
~
.~
t
0..
In
g
'"
t
p..
.....
o
.-.
N
Chapter VII
...
IV
'E
'0
D
'"
.:2
<>1:l
~
'"
~
.:c
o
~
'M
5
V}
VlI~8
APPENDIX A
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION
Calculation of public facilities costs to serve growth and corresponding fee levels has been
predicated on certain assumptions about facilities standards, State statutes governing public
facilities fees (CJO\ii!/'IIIIIi!1I1 ('ode Section 66000 et seq) and related case law require that fees be
based on standards applied uniformly to both new and existing development when the facillities
built benefit both. For the City of Dublin, the present standard is lower than the standard
anticipated in the future for certain facilities. To charge new development for a standard higher
than the present requires a commitment to bring facilities serving existing development up to the
same levels, i.e., to correct an existing deficiency, Otherwise, the City would effectively shift
funding of an existing deficiency to new development paying the fees.
This appendix identifies the existing deficiencies implied by the service standards used in this
repOli. Three areas of facilities will need existing deficiencies corrected. The City of Dublin is
currently below the desired standard for community parks, community buildings and library space
Library volumes per person is currently above the anticipated standard, and the civic center is
adequate to support existing municipal activities with minor improvements.
To maintain equity in its public facilities fee program, the City must correct existing deficiencies
and fund these costs from sources other than exactions, including fees, imposed on new
development. Typically, the share of facilities costs associated with erasing deficiencies are
funded out of general revenues or other sources dedicated to capital improvements. Where large
projects are concerned, these are often fll1anced through revenue bonds or certificates of
particiation.
A-J
Recht HOlfsmlh & Associates
Dublin Facilities Fee Study Appendix A
CALCULATION OF DEFICIENCIES
Table A.1 details calculation of the existing deficiencies for the facilities requiring expansion to
serve existing development at the standards projected by build-out. The facility measures refer
to acres of parks and building square feet for community buildings and libraries. Service
standards are in terms of acres per 1,000 residents and building square feet for person (service
population) for community buildings and libraries. Standards are based on different measures of
service population for the respective facilities. Park requirements are in terms of 1,000 residents
to be consistent with the Quimby Act requirements. Community and library buildings service
standards are based on a service population that includes a weighted employment to reflect
business use of each type of facility.
Table A.I
Existing Deficiencies
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Library
Community Parks Buildings Buildings
Calculation of Deficit
Existing Acres or Sq.Ft. 115 l2,178 15,000
Service Population (1) 23,660 24,200 25)900
Existing Standard 4.86 0,50 0,58
Desired Standard llQ 1.78 M2.
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.28 0.07
Required to Cure Deficit
Deficit from Standard 0.14 1.28 0.07
Service Population 23,660 24~200 25,900
Acres or Sq.Ft. Required 3.31 31,000 1,813
Cost per Acre or Sq.Ft. $362.000 ~ .$J%
Total Cost $1,199,000 $6.200.000 $355.000
(1) Community buildings and libraries service populations include employees weighted at 5% and 22%,
respectivel y.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
i
i
I Recht Hausrath & Associates
I A-2
I
Dublin Facilities Fee ..)'tudy
Appendix A
Existing park land falls short of the 5.0 acres per 1,000 resident standard allowed lUlder the
Quimby Act. Additional park acreage Can therefore be acquired to bring the park acreage
associated with the existing population in line with the standard applied to growth. The existing
park standard amounts to 4.86 aCres per 1,000 residents) or 0.14 acres per 1,000 short of the
standard. Existing resident population is 23,660) including 160 residents of the Eastern Dublin,
indicating an additional need of 3.3l acres. Costs are 5110\\'11 to be $362,000 per acre, including
land at $228,000 plus improvement at $134)000. The park defici.ency totals $1.199 million.
As developme11t proceeds in Eastem Dublin, the City plans to considerably expand community
facilities. At present community buildings tota118,778 square feet. The proposed build.out total
is 103,178 square feet. Compared with the existing service population of 24,200, the existing
standard for community buildings is 0.5 0 square feet per person. The proposed standard is 1.78
square feet per person, indicating an existing deficiency is thus 1.28 square foot per person. An
additional 31,000 square feet are needed to bring the facilities associated with existing
development up to the standard anticipated by build-out. Community facilities are estimated to
average $200 per square foot Cost of the deficiency is thus $6.2 million. This includes costs
associated with replacing the square footage of the current senior center when the school building
lease is tenninated, Aquatic centers are excluded from any calculation of an existing deficiency.
The existing aquatic center has a service area of the existing City and the proposed facility will
serve Eastern Dublin,
Library standards are expressed in terms of building square feet. As noted above, the existing
standard for volumes is above the projected build";out standard; no deficit in volumes exists. The
existing Dublin Library totals 15,000 square feet in size. Service population is 25,900, including
the allowance for employee use. The existing standard is thus 0.58 square feet per person, After
the proposed expansion of the existing library and construction of another branch in Eastern
Dublin, the building standard will be 0.65 square feet per person. At present the standard is 0.07
square feet per person short, indicating a need for 1 ,813 square feet to be allocated to existing
development. At the library cost of$196 per square foot) the deficit amounts to $355,000.
Table A.2 summarized the existing deficit for the three public facilities. Combined, the City
must secure funding for $7.754 million in improvements during the period through year 2025.
On an annual basis over 30 years this amounts to $258,500 in constant dollars to be funded from
sources other than fees or exactions imposed on new development.
Recht Hausrath & Associates
A-3
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Appendix A
Table A.2
Summary of Existing Deficit
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
Community Parks
Corrununity Buildings
Libraries
Total
$1.,199,000
6,200,000
355.000
$7,754)000
Annually, 1995w2025
$258,500
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
Recht Hausl'ath & Associates
A-4
Dublin Facilities Fee Study
.
!I{1-l' .
.
>.
0"0
~~
"'g 8
~<<lc...
QioJC/.l
;> $.!l
'-> .tl
";::11:1:=
- 0 0
c!:~co
r~u..
~~
~~
Cl
.
ts
tIl OD
OD ~
::l e
i g.
~ ~
<:>
~ ~
] !t
"C ~
i L1
J
t.)
b 8
Po;...
..... Q
tIl....
OA.
US
I:tl
<ii 0
'S 0'1
<I.l lrI
]
o It'l ~ I.D It'll t-.
ooOt'f"l\D QO
.......... ~
6":t {,IS
c;
'~
5
"C:l
~
J! ~ C'l
OJ).... t<"i
,5l ~
["/}~
t~
Po~
't;jt_
8~
8 0
IE ~
o
00 co 0\ 0 C'\ll r-.
OM\Olt'l_r--
'lI:I"N ...... Q()
ft;lo (,IS
OoVi/lfl
Vt
OQ~~
IilI':t
.. e
!~
.~ Q
=-
b..c
f::: $:!/: a: ~
CC QO all..
fn 5m
\CIs
~lii
l:I..E:
r:n '
5]
jo
i~
0.$
ooMl....-r 0"5
g] ~ ~!
~ .$ 'il
"'0"'0
~~
,~&
N Nl"llf .g [
~ ~;l ~a
M ...... ...; ~ "8
~ Et') l::n
~~ 8
o~ >.
l8 ..9
nOD P"
i~ 5
f'l- i':
o~ eo.
2] ~
~ ~ ~
o~ ~
18 0"
nCII
2~ l!l
t: - 'F.:
~'- =
81 iii
'+:I
'~'e j
-e = -
,- tll)
j:s '~
'~! &
~~ g CII
.5 c '" u
:::l~ t "ij
~ ~ .e- .~
.-;i ~ i2
~~ ~ "'d
e ::l ~ .;s
:w ~ ,S ~
tl..2 ,'[ i;l
~,e- e fi tt:;
]-u"'O -
'3Cl1.... "5
~t; OD
u P" P" ~
l?e'~H
us l;j a 0
........ ......
C r-t
f'V'l/N
00 c;'\
r<"'I r'l
~
o 0=:;\01'C --=fq'-\6I- 010"
~ ~ ~.
f'-t
OOr<"'ll~
O\O\OIN
Ot"-oC'\lQ
O'\v-~
~ ...
....-r
~
o N N''''''
-.:t\Oo~
-.:tr--N~
.. ...
- N
~ Eo"t
OOOMI~
l.r) ("~ \0 ~
v(".\ r..
~ Eo"t
...... ""'"~ lfl
MOM
M..q.r--
~Nr:
fA Eo"t
::g ;;)l~
\Or--. v
......~ rf
1;.0'7 V)
-E
~ dJ
~ ~
~ j;>
~ ~ ~
~l3.. ~8
j~~ ~-., - ~
00 rn~~ -E'~ ~ ~ ~
";"" ~~13 o~~ ~ u
..... Cl:I Cl:I r:l '"d g ~ = 11 I::
'~, ~ ~ P=l .... ;.::I 0 -= :.= ~:.:::
G) .o.c:-p ~ ~o 11:1 .Du"Q
o .2 'S .a n = ..s -S U = A
d~~O=~O-Q]~o-~~e-
~ :01 sse.~ () :: e ~ ~ ':g ~ f .~ ~ .!
~ S S S ~ .~ ~ ~ ._ ._ ::l ~ j&j .0 ~ ~
8 .. 8 8 8 ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ] u ~
au liIo'l iolOI
]I :g
e trJ
J
Ofl"l\Ol:'\OIM
-NMI,"-o. lI'i
(",1- ''If
~ ~
\0 N 000'\ C1"llQC
O\O......M M
- M
~ E'-t
JU:;. Q
~'i N
~ ~~
~ :J
o b
] ~
o-l 8
\ONC"'lONIM
...... t~ - 'I"l N f'f;
'<:f'..ClOl'oM ~
~ ~
\0 - 0\ 0 'I"ll ~
I.DMM\OMf'l"')
Nt"l-V'\ ~
C'f -:- -" kh
(A ~
QO \0 \0 It') ......, '-=
O-v;r---....\Q
t"--"::t'tfj...... \Q
GI7 ..
.....
E'-t
Recht Hausrath & Associates
Chapter VII
u
~
5
VJ
f'11-8
EXHIBIT C