The URL can be used to link to this page

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