HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 - 1548 PFF FFF & Admin Guidelines Update
Page 1 of 8
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: August 15, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment of Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities
Fee, and the Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines; and
Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.28 (Dedication of Lands
for Park and Recreation Purposes) of the Dublin Municipal Code
Prepared by: Hazel L. Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager & Lisa
Hisatomi, Assistant Administrative Services Director
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider proposed changes to the Public Facilities Fee (PFF) and
Fire Facilities Fee (FFF) programs (the “Fee Programs”). The Fee Programs were last
updated in 2015 and 2005 respectively. The proposed rates for the PFF reflect changes
in cost and development projections since that time, and the proposed rates for the FFF
reflects changes in total population at build-out since the last update.
In addition, the City Council will consider introducing a related Ordinance amending the
Dublin Municipal Code to update the formulas used to calculate land dedication
acreage, using the population density for each land use type determined in the PFF
program update.
Finally, the City Council will consider an update to the Consolidated Impact Fee
Administrative Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution Revising the Public Facilities Fee for Future Developments within
the City of Dublin; adopt the Resolution Revising the Fire Facilities Fee for Future
Development within the City of Dublin; adopt the Resolution Revising the Consolidated
Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines; and waive the reading and INTRODUCE the
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code Relating to the
Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes.
Page 2 of 8
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
City policy requires that new development pay for the increase in infrastructure
necessary to accommodate the development. Adoption of the proposed amendments to
the Fee Programs will result in the collection of adequate revenue to ensure that the
City is able to build facilities required to provide services to the City’s population through
build-out. As proposed, the Fee Programs would fund approximately $128 mill ion in
capital facilities to serve growth through build-out.
DESCRIPTION:
Public Facilities Fee Background
The City Council adopted Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.78 on December 12, 1994,
creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging the PFF. The purpose
of the PFF is to finance municipal public facilities to mitigate the impacts caused by
future development within the City of Dublin on parks and public facilities. Such facilities
include the following: Public Safety Complex improvements for Police Services; build-
out of the Library; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks;
acquisition, construction or build-out of community buildings (including cultural centers,
community and recreational centers, and aquatic facilities). The City imposes other
development fees to mitigate the impacts on other public facilities, including on the
transportation system and on fire facilities.
Several City Council-approved documents set forth the scope of public facilities
necessary to serve new development. The City first adopted the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan in July of 1994, which has been updated at various points since that time,
most recently on May 19, 2015. The Master Plan provides direction for addressing the
long-term park and recreational facility needs of the City through build -out of the
community. The Plan envisions a park system at build-out of the City based on a
standard of providing five-acres of park lands for every 1,000 residents, including, but
not limited to neighborhood, community, and natural community parks.
The Library Planning Task Force Report in April of 1993 recommended expansion of
the then existing library and construction of an additional library in Eastern Dublin. A
subsequent study done in September 1998 recommended construction of one 37,000-
square foot Library on the Civic Center site based on a projected buildout of 58,000 and
using the 0.6 square feet per capita library building standard. In 2005, the City built a
37,000-square foot library and improved 30,000-square feet of the internal space.
Another 1,850-square foot of improvements were completed in 2017, with the remaining
5,150 square feet to be funded by the PFF program and improved at a later date. In
January 2017, Alameda County Library system adopted a new Master Space Plan
(Attachment 1). In this Master Space Plan, the County established an updated standard
of square feet per capita, creating the range of 0.45 to 0.55. Dublin’s existing Library
with all improvements being made to the 37,000 square feet would place this facility at
the .50 square feet per capita, thus not requiring any expansion of Library space at
build-out with a population projection of 75,000 residents.
The City Council originally approved a Civic Center Programming document dated
November 1986 that provided for the ultimate build-out of the Civic Center to
accommodate what was then an estimated resident population projection of 40,000
Page 3 of 8
people in the year 2005. The City revisited the programming study in 2007 and again in
2010 to determine the projected needs for Civic Center expansion based on updated
population projections. The 2010 study projected the need for approximately 14,000
square feet of additional space at the Dublin Civic Center to accommodate the City’s
administrative and police services needs through build -out. In lieu of disruptive
expansion at the Civic Center, the City acquired an adjacent building to relocate and
expand police services to its ultimate build -out included in the 2010 study. The City
plans to reuse a portion of the police services wing in the Civic Center to allow for the
expansion of the balance of the City’s needs, as identified in the 2010 study. The cost
of this alternative approach is included in the proposed PFF 2017 Stu dy Update.
It has long been the City’s policy that new development pay for the increase in
infrastructure necessary to accommodate the development. This policy is reflected in
various City documents including, but not limited to, the Eastern Dublin Genera l Plan
Amendment (2.1.4, Implementing Policy C), the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policy 10 -
1, page 151), the Parks and Recreation Master Plan (contains goals and guiding
policies relating to the implementation of funding sources to acquire, develop, oper ate
and maintain recreational facilities – Goal 3), etc. Consistent with the policy, the
proposed PFF 2017 Study Update assumes that development will pay for its fair share
of the construction and acquisition costs of the planned improvements. The City Cou ncil
adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996 establishing a PFF for development
within the City of Dublin. The PFF was based on the PFF Justification Study prepared
by Recht, Hausrath & Associates. In 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 60 -
99 revising the PFF that was based on the 1998 PFF Study Update prepared by
Hausrath Economics Group. In 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 214 -02
revising the PFFF that was based on the 2002 PFF Study Up date prepared by
MuniFinancial. In 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 134-15 revising the
PFF that was based on the 2015 PFF Study Update prepared by Willdan Financial.
Fire Facilities Fee Background
From 1988 to 1997, the City of Dublin received fire service by the Dougherty Region al
Fire Authority (DRFA). During that period, DRFA collected fire facility fees to pay for the
costs of new equipment and facilities to serve new development. In 1997, DRFA ceased
providing fire services to the cities of Dublin and San Ramon, and the City of Dublin
entered into a contractual relationship with the Alameda County Fire District (ACFD) to
provide fire and emergency response systems throughout the community and adopted
its own Fire Facilities Fee (FFF). As the responsible party for the provisio n of fire
service, the City of Dublin must maintain the existing fire stations and equipment, as
well as plan for new stations and equipment.
The City of Dublin currently maintains three (3) fire stations: Station 16 at 7494
Donahue Dr., Station 17 at the southwest corner of Broder Blvd. and Madigan Rd., and
Station 18 on Fallon Rd. ACFD is contractually obligated to maintain a five -minute
response time to the existing developed areas throughout Dublin, and there are no
current deficiencies in either fire facilities or apparatus required to serve the existing
population of Dublin.
It is anticipated that there will be continued residential and non-residential growth in
Dublin through the build-out of the community. Additional fire facilities and equipment
have been required to serve the new growth while maintaining the service levels
Page 4 of 8
currently provided to both Dublin businesses and residents. Given the fact that new
facilities and equipment have been necessitated by and built to meet the needs of new
development, it is appropriate to impose a FFF on new development to fairly allocate
the costs of the new facilities and equipment.
To that end, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 37 -97 on April 15, 1997,
establishing the FFF for future development in the City of Dublin. The study anticipated
the need for two new fire stations (Fire Stations 17 and 18) and related apparatus to
serve the new development in Dublin through the year 2025. The FFF was
subsequently updated in 2000, 2003, and 2005.
PFF & FFF Updated Fee Study
The Resolutions adopting the Fee Programs direct ed Staff to update the PFF & FFF
periodically to ensure that adequate revenues are being collected to build the facilities
within the program. Willdan Financial Services prepared revised repor ts titled “City of
Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update (2017 Study Update)” and “Fire Facilities
Impact Fee Update (Willdan Study).”
Changes to the PFF
The PFF 2017 Study demonstrates the necessity of modifying the PFF in certain
respects. Substantial changes include the following:
1. Update persons per dwelling unit based on dwelling types (single family
and townhomes; other multi-family and senior housing);
2. Increase improvement costs for Neighborhood Parks to reflect the City’s
recent costs to improve parks;
3. Utilize the updated per capita target of .45 to .55 square feet per capita in
the Alameda County Library Master Space Plan, adopted in January 2017,
placing the City’s Library facility at .50 square feet per capita at buildout;
4. Revise the Civic Center planned improvements to reflect the relocation of
the police wing improvements from the Civic Center to the Public Safety
Complex;
5. Adjust the Community Building planned improvements to reflect the
planned improvement of a Cultural Arts Facility in the current Police
Services space to be vacated as a result of Dublin Police Service’s
relocation to the Public Safety Complex; and
6. Reduce the build-out employment estimate to align with the Association of
Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040 projections.
Changes to the FFF
The Willdan Study demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the FFF to
reflect the fee program’s outstanding obligations for the construction of two fire
stations and updates the population projections to reflect current ci rcumstances.
Attachment 2 illustrates fees that are currently in effect as of July 1, 2017. PFF for
Citywide residential development are $27,461 per unit, and Citywide non -residential
PFF range from $1,930 per 1,000 square feet for an industrial use to $5 ,211 per 1,000
square feet for an office use. FFF for Citywide residential development ranges from
$544 for a multi-family unit to $870 for a single-family unit, and Citywide non-residential
Page 5 of 8
FFF ranges from $112 per 1,000 square feet for an industrial use to $254 per 1,000
square feet for an office use.
Attachment 3 illustrates the proposed fees by land use designation resulting from the
2017 Study Update and the Willdan Study. PFF for Citywide residential development
per land use designation are proposed to range from $9,140 for a senior housing unit to
$25,144 for a single-family and townhome unit, and Citywide non-residential PFF
ranges from $1,147 per 1,000 square feet for a senior service facility use to $3,779 per
1,000 square feet for an office use. FFF for Citywide residential development per land
use type are proposed to range from $123 for a senior housing unit to $339 for a single -
family and townhome unit, and Citywide non-residential FFF ranges from $32 per 1,000
square feet for a senior service facility use to $107 per 1,000 square feet for an office
use.
Overall, the proposed changes would result in a decrease in the PFF and FFF, with the
exception being the additional land use designation of senior housing for residential and
senior service facility for non-residential. The below charts illustrate the decrease per
land use designation.
Overall, the proposed changes would result in a decrease in the PFF and FFF, with the
exception being the additional land use designation of senior housing for residential and
senior service facility for non-residential. For the PFF, the single-family and townhome
land use designation will decrease by approximately 8%, and the other multi-family land
use designation will decrease by approximately 44%. The propose d PFF will decrease
for non-residential development with office and industrial land use designations by
approximately 27%, and commercial land use designation by approximately 28%. For
the FFF, the single-family and townhome land use designation will decre ase by
approximately 61%, and the other multi-family land use designation will decrease by
approximately 62%. The proposed FFF will decrease for non -residential development
with office land use designation by approximately 58%; industrial land use designat ion
by approximately 65%; and commercial land use designation by approximately 39%.
The changes in the fee structure are primarily due to the following factors:
1. Change to Population Numbers. The total number of population included in the
Willdan Study for the FFF is inclusive of both daytime employment population
and the City’s estimated build out population for residential development. This
update includes any projects that were not envisioned during the FFF 2005 Study
Update. Since the current fire facilities will be able to absorb the additional
population growth and not create any deficiencies in either fire facilities or
apparatus required to serve the population of Dublin at build -out, increase in
population means lower fee per capita to pay off the remaining financing cost of
the City’s current fire facilities. No changes have been made to the PFF
population estimates from the 2015 update.
2. Change in Fee Application. The updates to both fee programs proposes three
fees per land use designation as follows:
Page 6 of 8
Single-Family and Townhomes: Detached and attached single-family
dwellings, including townhomes. Detached single family homes are one -
unit structures detached from any other houses. Attached single family
homes (also known as townhomes or row houses) are one-unit structures
that have one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating
them from adjoining structures.
Other Multi-Family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as duplexes,
condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormi tories. These
are units in structures containing two or more housing units. Second
dwelling units on single family lots are also included in the other multi-
family land use category.
Senior Housing: All age-restricted dwellings.
3. Change in Number of Persons Per Dwelling Unit. The number of persons per
residential dwelling unit for the PFF has been changed from 2.7 persons per
dwelling unit to 3.08 for single-family and townhomes, 1.88 for other multi-family
and 1.12 for senior housing. The number of persons per residential dwelling unit
for the FFF has been changed from 3.20 persons per dwelling unit to 3.08 for
single-family and townhomes, from 2.00 to 1.88 for other multi-family and the
addition of 1.12 for senior housing. The change is based on the most r ecently
available data from the US Census American Community Survey. Since the Fee
is calculated on a per capita basis and converted to a per unit fee based on the
number of persons per dwelling unit, the decrease in number of persons per
dwelling unit leads to a slight decrease in the Fee rate.
Future Adjustments
Improvement Costs
The costs of construction of the Facilities identified in the 2017 PFF Study Update shall
be increased/decreased by the annual percentage increase/decrease in the
Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the month of
April over the same Construction Cost Index for the month of April of the prior year.
Land Costs
The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities as shown on Table 5.3 Neighborhood and
Community Parks in the 2017 PFF Study Update shall be increased/decreased annually
by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in the most recent
land appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee) (Attachment 4)
over the land cost per acre in the immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City
for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology), calculated as an
annual increase/decrease. For example, in 2013, the cost per square foot of
neighborhood parkland was $50.00/square foot, and in 2016 it was $53.00/square foot,
which results in an annual compounded growth increase of 2% resulting in a yearly
increase in land valuation of 2%. The City will continue to use the same formula to
adjust the Fees on July 1 annually.
Page 7 of 8
Proposed Revisions to the Consolidated Administrative Guidelines
Staff currently utilizes the Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines
(Guidelines) for the administration of the City’s impact fees. The Guidelines include a
section that allows the life of all impact fee credits to be extended in perpetuity with the
City Manager’s approval, and the credit in perpetuity will not be eligible to convert to
right to reimbursement. Staff is proposing to amend the Guidelines by not al lowing Fire
Impact Fee credits to be extended in perpetuity and allowing current credits in
perpetuity to be converted to right to reimbursement with the approval of the City
Manager. The proposed Guidelines amendment will ensure the repayment of the City’s
General Fund loan to the Fire Impact Fee fund and other outstanding obligations for the
construction of Station 17 and Station 18 at the City’s build -out. The proposed
Resolution includes this change, and changes can be viewed in Attachment 5. The
Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines can be viewed in Attachment 6.
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Should the City Council proceed with the adoption of the recommended Public Facilities
Fees, the Dublin Municipal Code will need to be amended to refle ct the PFF’s changes
in how population density per dwelling unit is determined . Therefore, the formulas for
calculating park and recreation area required per dwelling unit will need to be updated
as follows:
Each Single-Family dwelling unit is assigned three and eight-hundredths (3.08)
people.
Each Other Multi Family dwelling unit is assigned one and eighty-eight
hundredths (1.88) people.
Each Senior Housing dwelling unit is assigned one and twelve hundredths (1.12)
people
The proposed ordinance is Attachment 7.
Conclusion
As demonstrated in the General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin
Crossing Specific Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Publi c Facilities Fee
2017 Study Update, the Fire Facilities Fee 2017 Study Update, and other related
studies and document, future development in the City of Dublin will generate the need
for those facilities that are the subject of the Public Facilities Fee Study Update and the
Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study Update both dated July 19, 2017. Provision of these
facilities is critical to the implementation of the goals and policies contained in these
documents. If adequate facilities are not provided to serve th e needs generated by new
development, those new residents will place a burden on existing facilities.
Adoption of the Public Facilities Fee and Fire Facilities Fee is consistent with the
General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan,
the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and will
implement those plans. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the
public hearing, introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 7), adopt the Resolution revising
Page 8 of 8
the Public Facilities Fee (Attachment 8) and attached Exhibit A (Attachment 9), and
adopt the Resolution revising the Fire Facilities Fee (Attachment 10) and attached
Exhibit A (Attachment 11) and Exhibit B (Attachment 12).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A notice was placed in the East Bay Times on August 4, 2017 and August 10, 2017,
notifying the community of the City Council’s consideration of the proposed fee
increase/decrease and that the 2017 Public Facilities Fee and Fire Facilities Fee Study
Updates are on file with the City Clerk for public review for a 10 -day period prior to the
City Council’s consideration of the fee increase. In addition, a letter was mailed out on
July 27, 2017 to the City of Dublin’s Interested Parties list which contained 141
individuals and/or groups. Lastly, both Fee Study Updates were added to the City’s
website for viewing purposes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Alameda County Library Master Space Plan
2. Current Fees by Land Use Type and Area
3. Proposed Public Facilities Fees and Fire Facilities Fees
4. Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report by Associated Right of Way Services, Inc.
5. Resolution Revising the Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines
6. Exhibit A to Resolution - Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines
7. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code Relating to the
Dedication of Lands for Park and Recreation Purposes
8. Resolution Revising the Public Facilities Fee for Future Developments within the City
of Dublin
9. Exhibit A to Resolution - Public Facilities Fee Study Update – July 19, 2017
10. Resolution Revising the Fire Facilities Fee for Future Development within the City of
Dublin
11. Exhibit A to Resolution - Dublin General Plan Land Use Map
12. Exhibit B to Resolution - Fire Facilities Impact Fee Study Update – July 19, 2017
Alameda County Library
Master Space Plan
01.04.2017
CONTENTS
Page i
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................3
Project Background ....................................................................................3
Methodology..............................................................................................4
LIBRARY VISION ................................................................................................5
Building the Vision ....................................................................................5
Directions for Library Service and Facilities ..............................................11
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................15
Geographic Network Analysis ..................................................................15
System Capacity and Service Zones.........................................................20
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................24
Guiding Principles – Best Practices and Best Value .................................24
Summary of Space Recommendations ....................................................28
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – SOUTH ZONE ...............................................31
Fremont Main Library ...............................................................................32
Fremont – Centerville Library ...................................................................36
Fremont – Irvington Library ......................................................................38
Fremont – Niles Library ............................................................................40
Fremont – Warm Springs ..........................................................................41
Newark Library .........................................................................................42
Union City Library .....................................................................................44
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – CENTRAL ZONE ...........................................46
Castro Valley Library .................................................................................47
San Lorenzo Library ..................................................................................48
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – EAST ZONE ..................................................49
Dublin Library ...........................................................................................50
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – NORTH ZONE .............................................51
Albany Library ..........................................................................................52
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................54
Project Participants and Acknowledgements ...........................................54
Community Survey ...................................................................................58
Page ii
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
CONTENTS
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Page 1
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Alameda County Library’s mission is “to offer opportunities and
resources for lifelong learning and enjoyment that support individual
and community growth [and to] remain responsive by providing
welcoming spaces, outreach, materials, expertise, technology,
partnerships, and innovation.”
The Alameda County Library (ACL) is one of the largest library systems
in California, with a service population of well over a half million
residents in the cities of Albany, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union
City as well as in Alameda County unincorporated areas and points
throughout the Bay Area. ACL is a cherished and well-used community
resource; on average, residents of ACL service areas visit an ACL library
more than eight times per year, and more than half are active library
card holders. ACL maintains a highly popular collection, and offers a
wide range of programs emphasizing literacy, writing, technology, and
other life skills as well as educational support and lifelong learning.
ACL is also committed to serving the community through innovative
services and programs such as the Career Online High School, which
provides coaching and resources to help community members earn a
high school diploma.
ACL is a department of Alameda County, which owns three of the
facilities operated by the Library: the Castro Valley Library, the San
Lorenzo Library, and the Niles Library. The other seven facilities ACL
operates are leased from the jurisdictions in which they are located.
In the fall of 2015, the Library commissioned a study of the facilities
it operates out of and the development of a master space plan to
support the community’s library needs. The master plan process
engaged staff, stakeholders, and the community at all levels through
strategies including surveys, library drop-in events and public
meetings, and an all-day Strategic Vision Workshop. Project oversight
was provided by a steering committee composed of representatives of
ACL’s administrative, public service, and facilities staff.
“The library is an invaluable
public resource that is woefully
underfunded. Here’s to hoping
support increases substantially;
in the mean time, thank you to
all library employees for doing so
much to support the community.”
— community survey respondent
Page 2
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF MASTER PLAN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ACL’s ability to provide service to the community is materially affected
by the capacity and condition of its facilities. Staff, stakeholders, and
community members alike are keenly aware of how the library buildings
support or limit service.
Analysis of ACL patron data reveals geographic patterns and
preferences among patrons as to which library (or libraries) to use. This
analysis supports the creation of service zones, within ACL’s overall
service area, for use as a framework for facility evaluation and future
space planning at the system level.
This master space plan recommends a facilities space planning target
of 0.45 to 0.55 square feet per capita for ACL overall as well as for
each service zone. The 0.45 square foot per capita level is a threshold
level, below which ACL’s ability to provide access and service will be
noticeably compromised. The 0.55 square foot per capita level is a
target range for optimizing effectiveness and return on investment in
both capital facilities and ongoing operations.
Today, ACL’s facilities provide approximately 0.42 square feet per
capita – already below the recommended threshold level – and this
ratio will continue to decline as the population grows over the next 10
to 15 years. Currently the greatest deficiencies in capacity are in the
South Zone, in which more than 60% of ACL’s service population live.
Strategies for maximizing return on investment (ROI) in ACL’s facilities
include:
building system capacity by expanding or replacing existing
library locations, not by adding new libraries;
expanding its “omni-channel” strategy to expand access to
services not just inside the library, but also out in the community
and online;
designing library space for maximum flexibility and adaptability;
and
leveraging the strengths of small libraries by focusing on specific
areas of service.
“...I am a lifelong bookworm, and
avid and regular user of the library
and think everyone there does a
fabulous job.... I’ve been helped
more than once when I could not
find what I was seeking (misfiled
or lost, as it turned out).... You are
all doing a superb job.”
— community survey respondent
Page 3
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYREVIEW DRAFT; NOT FOR CIRCULATION
THRESHOLD TARGET
ACL TOTAL 291,000 SF 0.46 SF/cap 343,000 SF 0.55 SF/cap
25%% SF increase (deficit)47%% SF increase (deficit)
SOUTH ZONE 160,000 SF0.41 SF/cap 209,000 SF0.53 SF/cap
Fremont
Fremont Main 69,000 SF renovate 79,000 SF expand into Admin
Centerville 6,000 SF renovate 26,000 SF expand/replace
Irvington 6,000 SF transition to focused service 0 SF convert to PULSE @ CC
Niles 2,000 SF transition to focused service 2,000 SF focus/maintain
Warm Springs 6,000 SF new focused-service 26,000 SF new
Newark Library 26,000 SF replace 26,000 SF replace
Union City Library45,000 SF expand/replace 50,000 SF expand/replace
CENTRAL ZONE 56,000 SF0.38 SF/cap 56,000 SF0.38 SF/cap
Castro Valley Library35,000 SF renovate/maintain 35,000 SF renovate/maintain
San Lorenzo Library19,000 SF maintain 19,000 SF maintain
ACL @ AYC REACH 0 SF maintain 0 SF maintain
ACL @ Cherryland CC2,000 SF maintain 2,000 SF maintain
EAST ZONE 38,000 SF0.54 SF/cap 38,000 SF0.54 SF/cap
Dublin Library 38,000 SF expand into wing 38,000 SF expand into wing
NORTH ZONE 12,000 SF0.57 SF/cap 15,000 SF0.71 SF/cap
Albany Library 12,000 SF renovate 15,000 SF renovate/internal expand
SYSTEM SERVICES25,000 25,000
Administration 10,000 SF stay @ Fremont Main 10,000 SF move to alternate location
Central Services 15,000 SF stay @ Fremont Main 15,000 SF stay @ Fremont Main
2030 RECOMMENDATIONS 2030 RECOMMENDATIONS
G:\15471‐01 Alameda County MSP‐SSA\D‐Documents\Space Needs Analysis\ACL analysis VS 2017‐01‐03 1/3/2017
Both architecturally and operationally, Alameda County’s two newest libraries – Castro Valley Library and San
Lorenzo Library – demonstrate ACL’s clear direction for the future of its libraries, including their important
role in the community as a place for people to learn, create, collaborate, and share. They are innovative,
flexible, engaging, and attractive facilities that reflect and celebrate their communities, and are an excellent
model for enhancing space and services at other ACL facilities.
Opportunities to improve ACL’s ability to provide service at each location are summarized below.
Page 4
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEXT STEPS
ACL anticipates initiating a strategic planning process within the next
few years. Outcomes of this process will help refine the approach
to service at each facility – for example, the particular service focus
at facilities identified for transition to a focused-service model. This
process will provide the opportunity to continue the dialogue with
the community that was initiated through this master space planning
process.
ACL will also continue discussions with its partner jurisdictions about
the need for improved facilities to support improved service to the
community, as well as about how ACL can support the development of
implementable strategies for capital improvements according to each
jurisdiction’s individual timeline.
Page 5
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Alameda County Library currently operates 10 public service
locations, in addition to various “off-library” and outreach services in
other community locations. ACL’s largest library is the Fremont Main,
which accounts for one third of ACL’s annual in-library circulation; ACL’s
central system services, such as Administration, are also located at the
Main Library. At the other end of the spectrum is ACL’s smallest branch,
the 2,100 square foot Niles Library. Three of ACL’s branches are housed
in County-owned facilities; the rest operate in space leased from the
jurisdictions in which they are located.
Three of the facilities operated by ACL were designed and built with
modern library service in mind: the Dublin Library (2003), the Castro
Valley Library (2009) and the San Lorenzo Library (2015). The rest of
the facilities it operates are significantly older, and were not designed
to anticipate the increasing diversity of community needs or the rapid
evolution in library services that ACL has witnessed over the last two
decades. While ACL provides excellent service, in many cases these
facilities lack sufficient capacity, infrastructure, or condition to meet the
community’s full range of service needs.
With this in mind, ACL initiated a strategic master space planning
process to assess needs and develop a vision for the future of its
facilities. This process and resulting plan are intended to serve as a
platform for a separate initiative to develop a new strategic plan for
services and operations.
“The library is the one free safe
place for children and adults
of all income levels to go to
read, access free materials and
information and to enjoy a quiet
peaceful space. It’s a critical
public institution that provides a
real sense of community to a city
and crucial resources to all no
matter their economic status. ”
— community survey respondent
Page 6
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
In 2015, ACL selected Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning,
Inc. to facilitate the master planning process. The process included
interviews with key ACL staff; review of ACL data and past planning
efforts; branch library staff surveys; and many discussions with ACL
leadership to review findings and explore strategies.
A variety of methods was used to incorporate stakeholder and
community input for the project, including at least one public outreach
event at every ACL branch; multiple meetings with staff from each
jurisdiction served by ACL; and a Strategic Vision Workshop in March
2016 with broad participation by city, county, library, and community
leaders and stakeholders. The consultant team also facilitated a series
of meetings with a project steering committee composed of ACL
leadership and staff representatives from key departments. A list of
project participants is included as an appendix to this report.
“Libraries are essential and
excellent places in our society. We
need them supported and well
built and well funded too.”
— community survey respondent
Page 7
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
LIBRARY VISION
LIBRARY VISION
BUILDING THE VISION
The master space planning process sought broad input from
stakeholders and the community as well as from ACL leadership
and staff. This section discusses some of the outcomes of various
engagement strategies employed for this planning process.
Strategic Vision Workshop
On March 16, 2016, dozens of Alameda County community leaders,
Library staff and stakeholders, and representatives from local
and regional public agencies, private businesses, and non-profit
organizations gathered to explore a challenging question: what will the
future bring for Alameda County, and what role will the Alameda County
Library play in bringing this vision to life? Participants collaborated
throughout the day on a series of focused activities to develop ideas
about the future and encourage visionary thinking. They were invited
to approach each activity from the perspectives of Service, Innovation,
Place, and Partnership.
After the opening activities, participants broke into small groups to
brainstorm about how the attributes of various local and national
brands, services, and organizations might apply to “alternative
future libraries.” The different groups displayed a remarkable level of
consistency among the inspirations for their proposed future libraries:
Kaiser Permanente and farmers markets inspired discussion of
high levels of service quality, staff knowledge, and “one-stop”
convenience.
Amazon was a popular metaphor for its diverse range of
products, user ratings, and creative delivery methods.
Apple Store and Walmart were lauded for their friendly, well-
trained staff who are knowledgeable about products and experts
at customer service.
KQED and Starbucks were seen as strong examples of
organizations that value diversity and inclusiveness.
Page 8
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
LIBRARY VISION
Participants then gathered into groups to brainstorm big vision
statements for Service, Innovation, Place, and Partnership for ACL.
Out of this exercise, a number of Strategic Vision areas emerged that
participants felt should be an area of focus for ACL in the future:
Broad access
increasing hours of operation at full-service ACL locations
expanding the range of library services available 24/7 through
ACL’s website
extending the Library’s reach through mobile services, micro-
branches, pop-ups, and other “outside the library” strategies
Diverse programming
expanding the range of programs and services to meet diverse
community interests
programs to meet emerging community needs for STEM,
workforce development, and entrepreneurship
providing flexible, adaptable space to accommodate changing
program needs daily over time
Community focus
space for community and social events
art and cultural displays and exhibitions
increasing opportunities to involve and engage youth
Strategic partnerships
exploring strategies such as a “universal library card” to enhance
access to collections and services
leveraging relationships with county departments, local
governments, and complementary agencies to expand access
to records, resources, and information
A consistent theme throughout the day was the opportunity for ACL
to develop strong brand awareness in the community, particularly as a
central resource for services supporting lifelong learning.
Page 9
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
LIBRARY VISION
Community Survey
Starting in March 2016, the Library published a survey with questions
about respondents’ vision for their own future, the role that ACL plays in
their community, and potential areas of focus and service expansion for
ACL. The survey was available in multiple languages, including English,
Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi. Promotion of the survey emphasized the
online versions via SurveyMonkey, although paper versions were also
made available in selected locations. A copy of the English version of
the survey is attached as an appendix to this report.
As of May 30, 2016, nearly 1,400 responses to the English version of
the survey had been collected. Another 23 responses were received
for the Chinese language version, five responses for the Hindi version,
and six for the Spanish version. Analysis of the responses focused
on cross-tabulation by age group and respondent home city. Most
respondents (92%) self-reported as being Alameda County residents,
and Albany, Castro Valley, Dublin, Fremont, Newark, and Union City
were the highest represented communities in the survey respondent
sample. The respondent sample was slightly skewed compared to
the US Census age profile of Alameda County, with a slightly higher
proportion of Generation X respondents and a slightly lower proportion
of Generation Z than are represented in the general population.
The survey analysis revealed several key differences among the age
groups:
▪Generation Z (ages 5 to 14) were the most likely to say that they
plan to start volunteering over the next 10 years, in addition to
finishing school and starting their careers. They were the most
frequent visitors to the ACL website of any of the age groups.
Among their priorities for service are homework support, cultural
and art exhibits, café, and language learning resources.
▪Millennials (ages 15 to 34) were the most likely to report that they
are new members of their community, and that their plans for
the next 10 years include advancing in their careers. They were
particularly likely to say that providing more places to sit should be
a priority for the library.
▪Generation X (ages 35 to 54) were the most likely to report that
recreational places and activities, continued education, knowing
their neighbors, public safety, and affordable entertainment are
important for their families and their communities.
▪Baby Boomers (over age 55) were more likely to actually be
volunteers as well as to participate in shared interest groups. They
tended to agree that ACL provides good customer service, helpful
staff, and good value. They see ACL as playing an important role in
“The library is central to my
town in importance for the
dissemination of information
as well as a communal spot for
residents to gather and help each
other. It is entertainment and
information all in one.”
— community survey respondent
Page 10
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
LIBRARY VISION
providing access to technology, preparing children for school, serving as a creative center, and providing
a community gathering space.
The survey analysis also revealed several differences among residents of different communities in Alameda
County:
▪Respondents from Fremont were more likely to express interest in more seating at the library, including
quiet places to read and study.
▪Respondents from Dublin were particularly likely to describe their library as safe and clean, and to say
that they could usually find a place to sit.
▪Respondents from Albany were likely to be long-time community members who volunteer and are
involved in shared-interest groups. They particularly value local history, online access to their library
account, print materials, and research databases.
▪Respondents from Castro Valley tend to see the library as an important resource for new immigrants,
providing affordable entertainment, and serving as a creative center. They report that ACL is a good
value and would recommend the Library to others.
▪Respondents from Union City expressed particular interest in seeing more of the following at the library:
more places to sit; quiet spaces to study; STEM and maker resources; volunteer opportunities; and a
café.
▪Respondents from Newark expressed particular interest in a café, more children’s play and learn
resources, and more places to sit at the library.
▪Respondents in the San Lorenzo area were likely to describe their library as clean and safe, that it
provides enough places to sit, and that staff are helpful and provide good customer service.
A more in-depth analysis of the survey results is available as a separate appendix to this report.
Page 11
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
LIBRARY VISION
Community Outreach Events
To complement the input gathered through the survey and support
more focused discussion of topics of interest to the community,
outreach events were held at each of ACL’s facilities between February
and May 2016. Each library hosted “pop-up” information kiosks, each
facilitated by a member of the project team and/or other ACL staff
who proactively invited library customers to provide input. Evening
community meetings were also held at the Albany, Dublin, Castro
Valley, Fremont Main, Newark, and Union City libraries. More than
1,000 community members participated in the process through these
events.
At both the informal kiosks and the evening community meetings,
participants were presented with a selection of eight types of core and
new library services, and invited to “vote” for their priorities using four
green dots. The results of this exercise showed some clear priorities for
ACL systemwide, as well as some unique differences among each of
the communities it serves. Highlights include:
Children received the most votes countywide, with nearly 70%
of participants reporting that children should be a priority for
ACL. Children were a particularly high priority for participants
in Newark (92%), Fremont (88%), and Dublin (81%).
Technology was the second-highest priority, with votes from
more than 60% of participants countywide. In San Lorenzo,
Technology was tied for first place with Children, with more than
70% of participants voting for each.
Variety of Spaces for People was the third choice for ACL
customers overall at 57%. This was the second-highest priority
for Albany participants (65%).
Materials to Check Out received votes from just over half of
participants. Materials were the top priority for customers in
Albany (73%) and Castro Valley (72%), and were also a high
priority in Dublin (58%).
Teens rounded out the top five, with votes from 50% of
participants countywide. Teens were a particular area of priority
in Newark (67%), where they ranked second.
Page 12
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
LIBRARY VISION
Library Staff Input
ACL staff were invited to provide input via an informal method
consisting of eight questions, posted two at a time in the work room/
break room at each library, along with blank poster-sized paper for
staff to write on. Each pair of questions was posted for one week, after
which it was replaced by the next pair. This format gave staff the ability
to answer at a time convenient to them, as well as to read and build on
each other’s comments.
Asked what they are proudest of at ACL, staff described the Library’s
commitment to being responsive to community needs and requests,
while also looking forward, offering innovative programs and services
such as Tech It Out, a service offering automated laptop and tablet
checkout for use in the libraries. Staff also mentioned their pride in the
partnerships they have developed with the community.
Many staff mentioned ACL’s facilities as a particular challenge, from
simply not having enough space in general, to lacking specific spaces
and features in particular such as group study space and flexible
furnishings. Staff also saw opportunities to enhance public access to the
library, such as by increasing hours of operation, expanding outreach
services, and developing stronger partnerships with neighboring
library systems.
Asked to share their vision for ACL in the year 2020, staff offered a rich
and diverse set of ideas, including:
“A library system that is available (accessible) everywhere, not
just branches.”
“Focus on intergenerational programs based on interests, not
age.”
“To be a balance of both library (information hub, study,
and learning center) and community center (activities and
entertainment).”
“A vibrant hub for the community – helping patrons connect
with information, people, and services.”
“Innovation in library programs and services.”
“A community center for learning and research, giving access to
knowledge, [especially] for those who don’t easily have access.”
Page 13
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
LIBRARY VISION
DIRECTIONS FOR LIBRARY SERVICE AND FACILITIES
From the input of stakeholders and the community arose a number
of themes and concepts that are consistent not only with emerging
national trends in library services and facilities, but also with directions
Alameda County Library has been working steadily toward in recent
years.
Omni-Channel Access
Each method of stakeholder and community input raised the idea of
increasing community access to library services, through a variety of
channels – inside the library, outside of the library, and online. In fact,
ACL has been proactively building and deploying service delivery
strategies beyond its 10 libraries in order to provide patrons with
increased choice about when, where, and how to access library service.
ACL recognizes that not everyone in the community can visit one of its
library facilities during regular hours of operation. For some patrons it
may be a matter of limited mobility, while for others it may be scheduling
conflicts. To help address these needs, ACL operates the Bookmobile,
which visits a wide variety of community destinations such as schools,
day cares, senior housing, apartment complexes, and community
centers on a three-week rotating schedule. The Bookmobile has its
own dedicated staff and collection to serve its patrons’ most common
needs.
Embedding library services in partner locations is an emerging strategy
for ACL in order to increase awareness among populations who may
not be familiar with the Library, provide one-stop convenience, and/
or provide service where a full-service branch is not feasible or cost-
effective. One example is the PULSE model, in which materials vending
machines are placed in partner locations such as Alameda County’s
Family Justice Center. At the REACH Ashland Youth Center, ACL and
AYC staff work in partnership to offer programs which encourage youth
to explore civic and community topics through creative writing. ACL will
soon open an embedded library at the Cherryland Community Center,
where the ability to access shared space for programs and events will
offer a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to developing a
standalone library in this area.
Many ACL patrons enjoy using multiple channels to access library
service depending on specific needs and circumstances. Patrons often
use ACL’s website to search the catalog and place holds for pick up
during their next visit to the library of their choice. Others may, while
browsing the shelves in the library, use their mobile device to look up
user reviews of a particular book on ACL’s website. The Library recently
rolled out an updated version of its website that is an excellent platform
“I just love the bookmobile and
the librarians/driver. They are an
integral part to my community
and to my children’s childhood
experience.”
— community survey respondent
Page 14
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
LIBRARY VISION
for providing service wherever patrons are – even those using a library
computer or tablet loaned through ACL’s Tech It Out service.
A Place for People
In its 2014 report on the future of public libraries, the Aspen Institute
made a strong case for the central role that the library plays as a place in
the community. More than a mere repository of information, the library
is actually a focal point for learning, collaboration, and engagement.
To support this trend, according to the report, “The physical library
must undergo a transition that embraces the openness and flexibility
needed to thrive in a world of constant change. Central to this flexibility
is creating spaces that can adapt to the changing operational models
of libraries.”
In fact, ACL’s two newest facilities showcase and celebrate this vision of
libraries as flexible, adaptable places for people in their communities.
Overall, both the Castro Valley Library and the San Lorenzo
Library embrace the concept of the library as a “third space.”
They recognize that people come to the library with a wide
variety of needs and goals, and provide a comfortable space
in which to pursue them. Refreshments are understood and
welcomed as an important element of a comfortable place.
Spaces are colorful, attractive, and filled with light.
These new libraries empower customers to manage their own
library experience effectively, through highly navigable layouts
as well as prominent and functional self-service options. This
customer-centric service model is designed to reduce necessary
reliance on staff for general/low-level needs, and enhance staff
availability for programming and customized service.
The libraries are designed to support both individual and
collaborative activities. The two wings of the San Lorenzo Library
increase opportunities for customers to find a quiet or social
setting to meet their needs, even as activity patterns in each wing
change from morning to afternoon. Power is also available at
the majority of seats for customers who bring their own devices.
These libraries offer a high degree of flexibility to support
changing programs and customer needs over the course of
each day. Furnishings are easy to move, reconfigure, and store
to support programs and groups of different sizes.
Both libraries also support long-range adaptability to support
evolving services and technology. The San Lorenzo Library has
a shallow raised floor to facilitate access to power and data as
needed for changing layouts and furnishings over time.
“The library as people reflects the
shift away from building collections
to building human capital,
relationships and knowledge
networks in the community. People
are at the center of the library’s
mission to inspire and cultivate
learning, advance knowledge
and nurture and strengthen
communities. While there are
thousands of stories in the public
library, the ones that matter most
come with the people who use the
library.”
— Aspen Institute
“Rising to the Challenge:
Re-Envisioning Public Libraries”
Page 15
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
LIBRARY VISION
Destination for Innovation
Libraries are uniquely positioned to provide an open, equitable, and
accessible platform for sharing ideas as well as information, with
an emphasis on collaboration. The opportunity for ACL to provide
new, diverse services that bring people together was recognized
by many stakeholders and community members participating in the
development of this master plan.
Innovative amenities that ACL and other libraries are offering include:
▪Maker space – Maker/tinker spaces in libraries support collaborative
learning and innovation through demonstrations, hands-on
experimentation, and the opportunity for patrons to observe and
even coach one another. ACL operates a “portable maker space”
in the San Lorenzo Library, converting the community meeting
room into a lab where children and teens take on a range of hands-
on projects. Johnson County Library in Kansas recently opened
one of the largest maker spaces in the country, featuring tools and
equipment for working with fabrics, electronics, wood, metals; 3D
printing; and even music and video recording, including a sound
booth and green screen.
▪Opportunity space – Providing prominently located, flexible
gallery space enables libraries to accommodate temporary uses,
such as pilot testing new library services, without displacing library
programs from the meeting room. Such space can also be used to
house partners who offer complementary services, such as other
County departments or local non-profit agencies. Opportunity
space at the Dayton Metro Library’s Northwest Branch is temporarily
housing exhibits from the local Funk Music Hall of Fame, a highly
popular offering that is introducing many community members to
the library.
▪Work/collaboration space – Libraries recognize that they offer a
variety of resources to support entrepreneurs and local businesses.
For example, the Spokane Public Library has a librarian dedicated
full time to outreach and service to the local business community.
The library can offer space and services to help entrepreneurs to
meet, network, share ideas, and innovate. The library can also be
an alternative to the local coffee shop – offering a less hectic, better
equipped, more professional, and more affordable environment in
which to meet with clients or get some work done.
“It would be really cool to have a
technology center with interesting
new technology and different
programs surrounding that.”
— community survey respondent
Page 16
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
LIBRARY VISION
A sample of ACL circulation
records from 2015 was plotted on
a GIS map of ACL’s service area.
The colored squares mark the
location of ACL’s libraries.
Each small dot marks the home
address of a patron who checked
out materials during the sample
period; the color of each dot is
coded to the ACL library where the
patron picked up the materials.
The resulting maps show how far
patrons are able and willing to
travel to reach each ACL location
– the “geographic draw” of each
library.
The maps also reveal certain
barriers to library access. For
example, there is little cross-use of
the Albany Library with other ACL
locations, suggesting that Albany’s
relative isolation from the rest of
the service area is a barrier to
accessing other resources in the
ACL system.
Page 17
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
How well do ACL’s facilities support its ability to serve current and
projected community needs? This section summarizes the analysis of
ACL’s service delivery network.
GEOGRAPHIC NETWORK ANALYSIS
Maps of ACL patron circulation data show that residents of all
geographic areas of the Library’s service area can – and do – access
at least one full-service ACL location. These maps complement and
reinforce the analysis prepared for ACL by CIVIC Technologies in 2015,
which mapped different service types prevalent in different areas of
the County. Looking at these maps together, it is clear that ACL’s full-
service libraries are geographically adequate to serve the communities
in its overall service area.
However, within each individual service area, each ACL location varies
in its apparent geographic “draw” – the distance which patrons are
generally willing to travel to the library. Generally speaking, libraries
with a wider geographic draw tend to be larger and offer a wider
variety of resources and services, such as meeting rooms, seating,
collection materials, technology, etc. This is illustrated in examples
such as the Fremont Main Library, which draws patrons broadly from
throughout the southern part of ACL’s service area. In comparison, the
Niles Library mainly draws from nearby neighborhoods.
ACL’s libraries vary in terms of the number of hours and days that they
are open to the public, and it is valid to consider what influence this may
have on the geographic draw of each library. While we might expect to
see a greater volume of use at the smaller libraries if they were open
more often, it is not likely that the geographic catchment radius would
substantially increase. Using the Niles Library example again, we would
expect the map to show more dots in the neighborhoods surrounding
the library, but not significantly more dots beyond that radius. In this
situation, patrons’ choices tend to be driven by what they believe will
be available at each library; if they must travel a distance to get to a
library, they will tend to choose a larger library where the chances are
greater that they will find what they need – a book, a DVD, a computer,
or just a place to sit.
This analysis is not meant to suggest that small libraries are less
important than larger libraries. But it does suggest that larger libraries
provide a higher level of service relative to the cost of providing it – a
finding with real implications for library facilities planning.
“I love the library and I love that
Albany is a small enough town
that we can all walk to the library!”
— community survey respondent
Page 18
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
The maps for Castro Valley Library
and San Lorenzo Library suggest
that I-580 is a strong factor in
people’s decision-making about
which library to visit.
While there is some cross-use
of the Castro Valley Library by
residents of Cherryland, Ashland,
and San Lorenzo, residents of
this area are much more likely to
choose the San Lorenzo Library.
Page 19
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
The Dublin Library is used most
heavily by patrons living east of
the hills. Mapping shows some
cross-use of the Dublin Library
by residents of Pleasanton,
San Ramon, and other nearby
communities.
Page 20
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
The maps for the Newark Library
(above right) and the Union City
Library (below right) show that
each library is accessible within its
community. They also show some
cross-use of libraries between
these two communities.
Page 21
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
The Fremont Main Library (orange dots) has by far the largest geographic draw of any of ACL’s locations, attracting patrons
from throughout the southern zone. Centerville (brown dots) has some attraction to residents of Union City. The Irvington
(blue dots) and Niles (red dots) libraries show very localized use of these ACL locations, suggesting that most patrons who
must travel more than a short distance for library service will choose to visit a larger ACL location such as Fremont Main.
Page 22
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
SYSTEM CAPACITY AND SERVICE ZONES
ACL’s capacity to serve community needs can be evaluated in a
variety of ways. Relative to facilities, the concept of capacity means
the amount of space ACL requires for services, programs, materials,
and technology. As the demand for library service tends to increase
proportionate to population growth, it is appropriate to evaluate and
plan library capacity relative to size of the service population.
Capacity assessment must take into account the level to which patrons’
access to libraries is affected by natural or developed elements.
Mapping of ACL circulation data does show certain barriers that appear
to influence patrons’ decision-making about which ACL location(s) to
visit. For example, San Lorenzo residents are noticeably less likely to
cross I-580 to visit the Castro Valley Library, and vice versa. At the
northern part of the county, Albany is quite a distance from the other
communities ACL serves, and Albany residents understandably use
the Albany Library much more often than other ACL locations.
Service Zones Defined
The geographic analysis finding influences how to evaluate the current
capacity of the system, and has implications for how and where to build
capacity effectively. Based on the mapping data, four service “zones”
were established to guide the planning of ACL’s facilities and services.
▪North Zone – Albany. This zone is the most geographically isolated
of the four zones as well as the smallest, comprising about 3% of
ACL’s total service population. Growth in this zone is projected to
reach approximately 21,000 people by 2030.
▪Central Zone – Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, San Lorenzo,
and other unincorporated communities. Just under one-fourth of
ACL’s service population lives in this area. This zone is projected to
have a lower population growth rate than the other zones, but still
is expected to grow to more than 145,000 people by 2030.
▪East Zone – Dublin and unincorporated communities such as Sunol.
Currently at 11% of ACL’s total service area population, this zone
is anticipated to experience a higher rate of growth than the other
zones, reaching nearly 70,000 residents by 2030.
▪South Zone – Fremont, Newark, and Union City. This zone is the
largest in the ACL system, with more than 60% of ACL’s total service
area population. Continued development and densification of this
zone (particularly in Fremont and Newark) is anticipated, with its
total population expected to reach more than 390,000 by 2030.
Page 23
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
System Capacity by Zone
Today, ACL’s facilities provide approximately 0.42 square feet of library
space for each person in the service population. This ratio is fairly low,
particularly given the discontinuous geography of the service area,
the small size of some of the facilities, and the relatively staff-intensive
operational model that some of the older facilities require.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that
ACL’s service population will grow by nearly 14% by 2030. Given this
projected growth, the ratio of space in ACL’s current facilities to its
service population overall will fall below 0.4 square feet per capita by
2030 – further constraining the Library’s ability to provide service.
ACL’s service zones differ widely not only in terms of the amount of
library space they provide per capita today, but also in their projected
rates of growth.
▪By the numbers, the North Zone is comfortably served at 0.64
square feet per capita today, and is anticipated to remain close to
this factor even with community growth anticipated at about 13%.
▪The East Zone provides 0.5 square feet per capita, which is
considered reasonable for today’s population size. With population
growth in Dublin anticipated at more than 20%, however, this ratio
could fall to 0.43 SF/capita by 2030.
▪The Central Zone provides approximately 0.42 square feet per
capita, including the ACL service point currently under construction
in the Cherryland Community Center. Anticipated growth of
approximately 10% will reduce this ratio to just under 0.40 by 2030.
▪At 0.31 square feet per capita, the South Zone provides the least
capacity for its current service population. Anticipated growth of
12% in this region could drop this ratio to less than 0.3 SF/capita
within 15 years.
The table on the following page shows the breakdown of population
and current library facility space by zone.
“Our library is too small now for
the population it serves.”
— community survey respondent
Page 24
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT REVIEW DRAFT; NOT FOR CIRCULATION
ZONE
APPROX.
POP.
APPROX.
LIBRARY SF
LIBRARY
SF/CAP
APPROX.
POP.
% INC SINCE
TODAY
LIBRARY
SF/CAP
APPROX.
POP.
% INC SINCE
TODAY
LIBRARY
SF/CAP
8%
ACL TOTAL 563,800233,0000.42582,800 3%0.4628,000 11%0.38
SOUTH ZONE350,500110,0000.31362,300 3%0.31390,900 12%0.29
Fremont 228,50083,000 0.36 232,700 0.36 252,800 0.33
Fremont Main 69,000
Centerville 6,000
Irvington 6,000
Niles 2,000
Newark 44,60015,000 0.34 52,100 0.29 56,200 0.27
Union City 73,40012,000 0.16 73,400 0.17 77,600 0.16
Unincorporated South
(Fremont)
4,0000 0 4,100 0 4,300 0
CENTRAL ZONE134,20056,0000.42137,900 3%0.41146,200 9%0.39
Castro Valley CDP62,20035,000 0.56 64,600 0.55 68,500 0.52
San Lorenzo CDP24,20019,000 0.79 24,700 0.77 26,200 0.73
Ashland CDP 22,7000 0 23,100 0 24,500 0
Cherryland CDP 15,3002,000 0.13 15,500 0.13 16,400 0.13
Fairview CDP 9,8000 0 10,000 0 10,600 0
EAST ZONE 60,40030,0000.562,900 4%0.4869,900 16%0.43
Dublin 54,40030,0000.5556,800 0.5363,500 0.48
Unincorporated East
(Dublin)6,000006,100 06,400 0
NORTH ZONE 18,70012,0000.6419,700 5%0.6121,000 12%0.58
Albany 18,70012,0000.6419,700 0.6121,000 0.58
SYSTEM SERVICES 25,000
Administration 10,000
Central Services 15,000
WITHIN CURRENT ACL FACILITIES INVENTORY
TODAY 2020 2030
G:\15471‐01 Alameda County MSP‐SSA\D‐Documents\Space Needs Analysis\ACL analysis VS 2017‐01‐03 1/3/2017
Library staff and community members are very aware of the limitations on service due to the lack of space,
and lamented the wide range of services and activities that they felt could not be supported in today’s
cramped ACL facilities. Although ACL is implementing strategies such as its PULSE stations and embedded
staff at REACH AYC to enhance service and access, these interventions alone will not be sufficient to make
up for the deficiency in library capacity as the population grows.
Page 25
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
GUIDING PRINCIPLES – BEST PRACTICES AND BEST VALUE
This section discusses some of the principles and factors used to develop the recommendations for
facilities in this master plan. Common to each of these is the concept of maximizing return on investment.
Here, “investment” refers not only to the costs of capital construction, but also (and perhaps even more
importantly) to ongoing operations costs over time. “Return” refers to the Library’s ability to effectively
deliver high-quality service and have a positive impact on the communities it serves.
Build Capacity by Expanding
Each full-service library requires significant investment – to build, to staff, and to maintain over time. As a
strategy for building capacity, adding a net new library location is most appropriate where communities are
underserved due to barriers that prevent access. Because patron mapping confirms that ACL’s geographic
network is accessible throughout its service area, adding new libraries to the network would not provide the
most cost-effective strategy for building capacity at either the community or system level.
As such, the recommendations of this master plan strive to build capacity by expanding existing locations
rather than by adding new branches. Larger facilities tend to be less expensive to build per square foot than
smaller facilities. Larger libraries also can be designed to be operated by a similar number of staff as a small
library, which reduces the operating cost per square foot.
Page 26
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Take the Services to the People
By offering patrons an alternative to visiting a full-service library, ACL’s
omni-channel approach can have a tempering effect on demand for
some in-library services. At the same time, however, these strategies
tend to raise awareness of the library beyond its traditional service
population, thereby potentially increasing demand for service overall.
Depending on whether and how it continues to develop its omni-
service channel network, ACL may be able to moderate or slightly
reduce (but not entirely eliminate) the amount of additional in-library
space that would otherwise be needed to provide capacity for its
current and projected future population.
This principle also applies to site selection for new or replaced libraries,
such as at Warm Springs. Even a relatively small library in a high-profile
location can provide high levels of service and have significant impact
on the community.
“I think it is wonderful that we still
have public libraries. I have been
afraid that they will be closed with
everything becoming digital. Thank
you for providing this service.”
— community survey respondent
Page 27
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Design Space to Maximize Use
Modern libraries such as the new San Lorenzo Library are built to
be flexible, supporting a wide range of uses and user groups over
the course of a typical day. As a core design principle, they are
also designed to be adaptable over time in order to accommodate
changing community needs, new services, and evolving technologies.
Furnishings are selected for mobility as well as durability and aesthetic,
enabling patrons to easily move and adapt seats and tables as needed
to meet their needs without staff assistance. This flexibility and
adaptability can help optimize the overall amount of space needed to
provide service, reducing the cost of construction and improving ROI.
Some libraries are also thinking differently about the traditional
approach of “designing for the demographic.” For example, teen
areas in libraries are often designed as vibrant spaces with cool décor,
more or a different variety of seating, and highly popular resources
such as gaming – none of which are attractive exclusively to teens.
During school hours, teen areas in libraries are often used by adults,
although perhaps uncomfortably if they feel they’re not really welcome
to be there. After school, young patrons often spill out of designated
teen spaces and into areas that other patrons feel are more rightly
“theirs.”
An emerging alternative is a library designed and operated to
accommodate patron preference – to provide a range of environments
for patrons of all ages to choose from based on their needs at that time.
Environments designed for activities – such as a cool café, a gaming
space, and seating for both individual and group use – supports and
encourages multigenerational connections around shared interests.
Flexible use spaces can be configured and furnished to accommodate
overflow during peak use times, such as after school.
“[It is] an extremely important
place to further education and
exposure to many and wondrous
experiences and information for
people of all ages and
walks of life.”
— community survey respondent
Page 28
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Leverage Small Libraries’ Strengths
Small libraries present a challenge to operate on a full-service model.
Because they cannot maintain sufficient resources to address either
the depth or breadth of community needs, many community members
choose to travel to larger libraries where they are more likely to find
materials, services, and space. As such, small libraries often tend to
serve a relatively small number of patrons who live or work nearby.
This ends up being a much lower return for the Library’s investment
than at a larger facility – which explains in large part why ACL’s smallest
libraries are only open one or two days per week.
That said, small libraries are not seen as less important by the
communities that they serve. They are vital resources, particularly for
community members who cannot travel longer distances to a larger
library. The challenge before ACL is to develop a modified service
profile for its small facilities that can be provided efficiently, effectively,
and perhaps even with extended hours of operation.
This master plan recommends transitioning ACL’s smallest facilities
to a focused service model. Focusing on specific services can more
effectively develop sufficient program quality, depth, and capacity to
serve more patrons. They can still serve as an access point for core
library services such as materials pickup and return, while moving away
from a full service model that their small size just doesn’t support.
Focusing service can also foster the development of public, private,
and not-for-profit partnerships to enhance service in those ACL
locations. ACL could pursue a partnership in which an organization
with a complementary service mission takes over primary operations
of the library location, and ACL becomes an embedded service within
it – thereby increasing both the community’s access and the Library’s
ROI.
“There’s no better value to the
community than the public library.”
— community survey respondent
Page 29
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS
This master plan recommends a space planning range of 0.45 to 0.55
square feet per capita in the ACL network for all facilities, including
administration and central ACL systemwide services. This target
is consistent with space planning for other public library systems
providing service to a mixture of low to moderately dense urbanized
communities. A local example is San Jose Public Library, which
implemented a 10 year systemwide capital program to reach its master
plan target of 0.4 square feet per capita for branch libraries.
▪The Target level of 0.55 SF/capita will support ACL in providing
the breadth and depth of programs, materials, and technology to
meet community needs, in addition to creating a welcoming and
inspiring place for people within the library.
▪The Threshold level for ACL facilities is recommended at 0.45 SF/
capita. Below this level, ACL will face more significant compromises
to its long-term ability to meet the community’s need for services,
including the need for space for people within the library. It will be
particularly important at the Threshold level to limit the number
of staffed facilities in order to maximize service and operational
efficiency, as smaller facilities tend to provide less service and be
less cost-effective to operate per square foot than larger facilities.
ACL already operates in less space than the Threshold level
recommends, and the effects of the space deficiency are felt by both
staff and the community – particularly in the South Zone, which already
has the lowest square feet per capita ratio in the ACL system. Without
expansion, the space deficit will only increase as the population
continues to grow.
The table on the following page shows the recommendations by ACL
service zone at the Threshold and Target levels.
“Love libraries – will support them
at the ballot box every time.”
— community survey respondent
Page 30
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
REVIEW DRAFT; NOT FOR CIRCULATION
THRESHOLD TARGET
ACL TOTAL 291,000 SF 0.46 SF/cap 343,000 SF 0.55 SF/cap
25%% SF increase (deficit)47%% SF increase (deficit)
SOUTH ZONE 160,000 SF0.41 SF/cap 209,000 SF0.53 SF/cap
Fremont
Fremont Main 69,000 SF renovate 79,000 SF expand into Admin
Centerville 6,000 SF renovate 26,000 SF expand/replace
Irvington 6,000 SF transition to focused service 0 SF convert to PULSE @ CC
Niles 2,000 SF transition to focused service 2,000 SF focus/maintain
Warm Springs 6,000 SF new focused-service 26,000 SF new
Newark Library 26,000 SF replace 26,000 SF replace
Union City Library45,000 SF expand/replace 50,000 SF expand/replace
CENTRAL ZONE 56,000 SF0.38 SF/cap 56,000 SF0.38 SF/cap
Castro Valley Library35,000 SF renovate/maintain 35,000 SF renovate/maintain
San Lorenzo Library19,000 SF maintain 19,000 SF maintain
ACL @ AYC REACH 0 SF maintain 0 SF maintain
ACL @ Cherryland CC2,000 SF maintain 2,000 SF maintain
EAST ZONE 38,000 SF0.54 SF/cap 38,000 SF0.54 SF/cap
Dublin Library 38,000 SF expand into wing 38,000 SF expand into wing
NORTH ZONE 12,000 SF0.57 SF/cap 15,000 SF0.71 SF/cap
Albany Library 12,000 SF renovate 15,000 SF renovate/internal expand
SYSTEM SERVICES25,000 25,000
Administration 10,000 SF stay @ Fremont Main 10,000 SF move to alternate location
Central Services 15,000 SF stay @ Fremont Main 15,000 SF stay @ Fremont Main
2030 RECOMMENDATIONS 2030 RECOMMENDATIONS
G:\15471‐01 Alameda County MSP‐SSA\D‐Documents\Space Needs Analysis\ACL analysis VS 2017‐01‐03 1/3/2017
Page 31
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – SOUTH ZONE
The South Zone currently has the largest population – as well as the
greatest deficit of library space – of all of ACL’s service regions. The
population in this area currently exceeds 350,000 and is projected to
grow at least 12% by 2030. This master plan recommends improvement
strategies in the South Zone not only to increase the amount of
space to support library materials and services, but also to optimize
the allocation of ACL’s resources, improve operating efficiency, and
optimize ROI for the community.
“When I first moved to Fremont,
the library was the first place I went
to. It’s a free entertainment place
for anyone. It has so much to offer
to everyone.”
— community survey respondent
Page 32
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
FREMONT MAIN LIBRARY
Although Fremont is relatively young for an incorporated city, it brought together communities that were
long-established – some even pre-dating California’s incorporation as a state. The City of Fremont’s history
since incorporation is characterized by rapid growth and nearly quadrupling of its population between 1960
and 2010. ABAG projects that growth will continue in Fremont, with the population reaching 275,000 or
more by the year 2030.
Fremont is not only the San Francisco Bay Area’s fourth largest city, but also one of its most diverse, with
significant Indian and Chinese populations as well as the largest Afghan-American community in the U.S.
Per U.S. Census data, Fremont has a higher average level of educational attainment than the Alameda
County average, with nearly 92% of residents having completed high school and nearly 28% having attained
a bachelor’s degree or higher.
The Fremont Main Library building is owned by the City of Fremont and opened in 1989. The building
is divided into two parts – ACL’s largest public service location at approximately 69,000 square feet, and
space for ACL administration and systemwide services (e.g., bookmobile) at approximately 25,000 square
feet. Community outreach participants at the Fremont Main Library reported a particular need for more
small meeting/group study rooms, increased access to power, and better acoustic zoning, particularly at the
children’s area.
FREMONT MAIN LIBRARY
Page 33
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
Almost 90% of community outreach participants at the Fremont Main Library said that children should be
a service priority for ACL, followed by providing a variety of spaces for people, technology, and teens. This
was echoed in the community survey, where more than two-thirds of respondents reported that preparing
children for school is an important role for the library. In the aggregate, community outreach participants at
the three smaller Fremont locations voted for technology as the top priority, while nearly two out of three
participants voted for library programs and events.
The Fremont Main Library plays a key role in the ACL system. As ACL’s largest full-service library, it provides
much-needed capacity for the collection and other resources that are shared systemwide. Fremont Main
also houses ACL’s administrative and central services functions.
Although the site appears to offer some capacity for expanding the building, preliminary analysis suggests
that this strategy would be less cost-effective at building system capacity than the projects recommended
at other locations. For this reason, the recommendation of this master plan is to maintain Fremont Main at
its current size, and renovate the facility to upgrade service, systems, and finishes.
FREMONT MAIN LIBRARY
Page 34
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
Threshold Option – Service and System Updates
At a minimum, Fremont Main Library will be due for renovation to address the wear and tear that thousands
of daily visitors have on furniture and finishes. Major building systems such as HVAC will need to be
upgraded and/or replaced according to their anticipated life cycle. Code-related updates will likely be
required at some level depending on the value of other improvements, and the City may wish to go beyond
the mandated minimum in order to improve the facility’s accessibility, efficiency, and sustainability.
As these basic life cycle maintenance projects are implemented, there will also be the opportunity to update
the facility to improve library service and operations – for example, by consolidating staff service desks,
rebalancing space for seating and the collection, and updating signage for better wayfinding. Interior non-
structural partitions could be added or moved to create new group study rooms, maker space, and other
resources to meet community needs.
Target Option – Flagship Library
Additional investment in the Fremont Main Library could yield significant returns in terms of improved
efficiency, functionality, and service to the community. This concept received enthusiastic support from
community members participating in an outreach event at Fremont Main in April 2016. Opportunities
include:
FREMONT MAIN LIBRARY
Page 35
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
▪Reorganization to reflect community priorities. Nearly 90% of participants at a community outreach event
at the Fremont Main Library said that children should be a top service priority for the library. Fremont
residents participating in the community survey ranked children, lifelong learning, and technology as
important areas of focus for the library.
▪Creating space for ACL flagship services. Unique resources could potentially draw patrons from
throughout ACL’s South Zone and beyond.
▪Creating a distinct and operationally independent “marketplace” with popular materials, technology,
seating, and other resources that can be open for extended hours with a streamlined staff profile.
▪Redesigning the branch staff work environment for increased creativity and innovation. The public service
staff work room could be transformed into an environment with diverse, flexible, and technology-rich
work spaces to encourage and support enhanced collaboration. Staff work areas could also be designed
to more effectively accommodate volunteer workers and other temporary surge situations.
▪Revisiting the allocation of space between public service and ACL administrative/system central functions
to support modern operations and potentially capture more space for public use. This would permit the
addition of new services – for example, maker space – without needing to reduce other existing spaces
and resources.
FREMONT MAIN LIBRARY
Page 36
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
FREMONT – CENTERVILLE LIBRARY
The Centerville Library originally opened in 1910, and hermit crabbed
its way through increasingly larger quarters as the community’s library
needs grew over time. In 1976, a new 6,000 square foot, state-of-the-art
Centerville Library opened, offering ACL’s first computerized checkout
system. Today, the Centerville Library operates two days per week in a
building owned by the City of Fremont.
The Centerville Library is a vital resource for the community and
should be maintained at (or near) its current location. This master plan
proposes two potential options to revitalize, optimize service, and
maximize operational efficiency for the Centerville Library.
FREMONT CENTERVILLE LIBRARY
Page 37
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
Threshold Option – Renovated Facility
The Threshold Option recommends renovating the library at its
current size, with expanded hours and services to better serve patrons.
The interior renovation could include code upgrades, any deferred
maintenance items, new finishes, new furniture and shelving, and
necessary technology infrastructure upgrades to create a vibrant 21st
century library.
Target Option – Expand to Full-Service Library
Expansion of the Centerville Library would allow for its more efficient
operation as a full-service library. A full service Centerville Library would
provide adequate meeting space for library programs and community
events; offer patrons more seating choices; accommodate a larger and
more browsable collection; better support for both library-provided
and customers’ own; and more.
Preliminary analysis of the Centerville Library site suggests that there
may be space to expand the existing building; further analysis will be
required to confirm the feasibility of this strategy, taking into account
the opportunities, constraints, and remaining life cycle value of the
existing building. The long-range operations and maintenance costs
associated with expanding the existing building should also be
compared with the projected costs for an all-new, highly operationally
efficient structure in order to determine which strategy will provide the
highest value over time.
FREMONT CENTERVILLE LIBRARY
Page 38
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
FREMONT – IRVINGTON LIBRARY
The Irvington Library was established in 1911. The current Irvington
Library building dates to 1972, after its predecessor burned down.
Owned by the City of Fremont, this facility housed ACL systemwide
staff functions until the current Fremont Main Library opened. Today
the Irvington Library is open to the public one day per week.
At approximately 6,000 square feet, the Irvington Library cannot be
operated efficiently as a full-service branch. Mapping of ACL data
shows that it draws patrons only from within a very small geographic
area, providing a relatively low level of return for ACL’s operational
investment.
Improvements are needed at the Irvington Library location in order
to optimize service and maximize operational efficiency. This master
plan recommends two potential options for the Irvington Library.
ACL’s upcoming strategic planning process will provide a framework
for identifying and evaluating the optimal service focus and staffing/
operational model associated with either of these options.
FREMONT IRVINGTON LIBRARY
Page 39
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
Threshold Option – Transition to Focused Service Facility
At the Threshold level, the Irvington Library could be maintained at its
current size and transitioned to a focused service model. One example of
a focused service would be a technology center with hours of operation
optimized for typical demand patterns. An extended hours lobby could
be developed to expand access to materials, technology, and other
services. Based on preliminary analysis of available information about
this building’s age and condition, construction scope at the Irvington
Library may require somewhat extensive deferred maintenance, life
cycle, and accessibility/code upgrades in addition to service model
enhancements.
Target Option – Alternative Service Delivery Model
In this option, ACL would seek to achieve a higher level of service
and ROI through an alternative service delivery model. One potential
strategy would be to develop a presence at a significant community
destination such as the Wally Pond Community Center. ACL’s PULSE
model would make materials available to the community daily rather
than once a week, and ACL staff could use community center spaces
for more frequent storytimes and other library programs. This option
would vacate the current Irvington Library building as a full-service
library location, and leave it available for recreation/event space or
other community needs.
If implemented in conjunction with the Warm Springs Library Target
Option, this option would be consistent with reports that the long-
range plan for libraries in Fremont has included closure of the Irvington
Library once a library is developed in Warm Springs.
FREMONT IRVINGTON LIBRARY
Wally Pond Community Center
Page 40
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
FREMONT – NILES LIBRARY
The Niles Library pre-dates the establishment of the Alameda County
Library, originally opening in 1890 as a circulating library in a local store.
The Niles Library’s current site on I Street was donated to the Niles Free
Public Library Association in 1928. The approximately 2,100 square foot
building was subsequently deeded to Alameda County in 1936. Today,
the Niles Library operates one day per week.
While the Niles Library is a cherished community landmark, it cannot
be operated efficiently or effectively as a full-service library branch.
Expansion appears impractical, given site constraints.
This master plan recommends that the Niles Library be transitioned to
a focused service model in order to optimize service and operational
efficiency. One example of a focused service would be as a new home
for portions of ACL’s local history collection, with hours of operation
optimized for typical demand patterns. ACL’s upcoming strategic
planning process will develop a framework for confirming the specific
area of focus for this location.
FREMONT NILES LIBRARY
“Niles Library is a special library.
My grandfather came here from
Mexico in the early 20’s and
learned English. Now my children
learn here too.”
— community survey respondent
Page 41
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
FREMONT – WARM SPRINGS
The Warm Springs area in the southern end of Fremont is home to
a number of major Silicon Valley businesses, including Tesla and
Lam Research, as well as some lower density single-family housing
developments. Major development is planned for Warm Springs in
order to replace some of the area’s industrial uses with higher density
mixed-use housing, retail, and commercial uses. The Warm Springs
development will include a BART station on the line extension that
connects with the light rail system in San Jose.
Warm Springs has long been identified as a target for developing
an ACL presence. Its proximity to BART/transit as well as to a major
vehicular corridor offers the potential for ACL to develop a unique
destination service here that is accessible to ACL patrons countywide
– for example, an innovation/creative technology center, perhaps in
partnership with the local business/entrepreneurial community. ACL’s
upcoming strategic planning process will create a framework for
identifying the specific area of focus for this location and for pursuing
partnerships to support innovative service.
Threshold Option – Focused Service Facility
Prominently located tenant space in a destination retail development
is a model that other libraries have implemented with great success.
In approximately 5,000 to 6,000 square feet of retail space, ACL could
operate a focused service facility with a popular collection, public
computers/technology, space for individual and collaborative work,
and even a moderately-sized program room. It could be designed for
extended hours access to materials, technology, and other services – a
particular benefit for patrons commuting via BART.
Target Option – Full-Service Library
At the target level, a full service library in Warm Springs would provide
approximately 20,000 to 26,000 square feet with meeting space for
library programs and community events, diverse seating choices, a
rich and highly browsable collection, and state-of-the-art technology
for both patrons and staff. Building capacity at Warm Springs would
also support the transition of the Irvington Library to a focused service
facility with a more efficient operational model.
FREMONT WARM SPRINGS LIBRARY
“It is amazing to have a center
that supports lifelong learning and
community bonding, which are
really important to me.”
— community survey respondent
Page 42
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
NEWARK LIBRARY
The City of Newark is a municipality of just under 45,000 people.
Incorporated in 1955, Newark has grown steadily over the past 51 years
into a diverse, yet close-knit community supporting a wide range of
industries and trades. The community is experiencing a new wave of
development, and expects to grow by at least another 15% by 2030.
The Newark community cherishes its library. More than half of Newark
residents are active library cardholders. In FYE 2015, each Newark
resident on average had visited the library at least four times and
checked out materials more than six times. Nearly one in two Newark
residents had, on average, attended a program at the library.
The Newark Library is an approximately 15,000 square foot facility,
originally built in 1983 and owned by the City of Newark. The library
is located in the City’s civic center, sharing parking and other campus
amenities with City Hall, the Police Department, and a popular
community park. In 2015, the City commissioned a needs assessment
and master planning study of its civic center campus. This study
confirmed that the current Newark Library is inadequate to meet even
today’s community needs, and recommended that a new, larger facility
should be built to house library services.
When asked what should be a service priority for ACL, more than 90%
of community outreach participants at the Newark Library answered
“children” and more than two-thirds said “teens” – the highest
rankings for these responses of any library in the ACL system. One in
two participants said that the library should provide a greater variety
of spaces for people; this was echoed by Newark residents responding
to the community survey, who expressed particular interest in having
more places to sit at the library.
Threshold/Target Option – New Library
The Newark civic center master plan recommends a target library
size of approximately 26,000 square feet with the capacity for future
expansion as needed to accommodate additional population growth.
This recommendation is consistent with the space planning target of
this ACL master plan for the system overall as well as for the South
Zone.
NEWARK LIBRARY
“My family LOVES the library,
especially the Newark Library.”
— community survey respondent
Page 43
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE NEWARK LIBRARY
Page 44
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
SOUTH ZONE
UNION CITY LIBRARY
The Union City Library is an approximately 12,000 square foot facility
owned by the City of Union City. The library is located at the City’s
civic center, sharing parking and other campus amenities with City Hall
and the Police Department. The inadequacy of the current Union City
Library building to serve the community has long been recognized.
The population of Union City today is nearly 10 times its size when the
current library opened in 1965. ABAG projects that the community will
grow by another 12% by 2030.
Approximately 15 years ago, the City commissioned a detailed library
needs assessment and conceptual design study that recommended
replacement of the existing structure with a new 47,000 square foot
building on an alternate site within the civic center campus. To date
funding has not been available to implement the project.
When asked what should be a service priority for ACL, more than two-
thirds of participants at an outreach event at the Union City Library said
“technology,” followed closely by providing a greater variety of spaces
for people. This was echoed by Union City residents responding to the
community survey, who expressed particular interest in having more
places to sit at the library, along with more STEM/maker resources.
UNION CITY LIBRARY
“I LOVE THE UNION CITY
LIBRARY!!”
— community survey respondent
Page 45
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
SOUTH ZONE
Threshold/Target Option – New Library
Consistent with the finding of the previous needs assessment, this
master plan recommends the expansion of the Union City Library to
approximately 45,000 to 50,000 square feet – a recommendation that
received strong community support during an April 2016 outreach
session.
The existing library site enjoys a prominent location along Alvarado-
Niles Road, a major community thoroughfare. However, preliminary
analysis suggests that there may not be sufficient space for a library
of the recommended size at its current corner location on the site.
Further analysis is recommended to compare the feasibility and long-
term value of expanding the existing building vs. replacement with a
new and highly efficient structure.
Preliminary analysis suggests that the site proposed in the previous
conceptual design study remains a reasonable and feasible option for
construction of a new library of the recommended size.
Development of a second library in Union City is not recommended as
a long-term strategy, as it is unlikely to meaningfully enhance access to
the full range of library services needed by the community. However,
ACL and the City may wish to explore opportunities to deploy
supplemental service strategies as an interim measure until the current
library building can be expanded.
UNION CITY LIBRARY
Page 46
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
CENTRAL ZONE
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – CENTRAL ZONE
Both of ACL’s two newest full-service libraries – Castro Valley and San Lorenzo – are located in the Central
Zone. Each of these libraries showcases the direction in which ACL is moving in terms of service model,
operations, and integration of technology. They also demonstrate a renewed commitment to providing a
welcoming and comfortable place for people to read, study, work, and enjoy the library both individually
and collaboratively.
No new full-service libraries are proposed in this master plan for the Central Zone. The Threshold Option for
this zone recommends maintaining the embedded library services at the REACH Ashland and Cherryland
Community Center locations for increased access in these communities. As a Target Option, ACL would
evaluate the need, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of implementing additional focused-service strategies
in this zone.
Page 47
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
CENTRAL ZONE
CASTRO VALLEY LIBRARY
Owned by the County of Alameda and opened in 2009, the Castro
Valley Library is still essentially a new building. Finishes and furnishings
are well-maintained and are wearing as expected for their age and
level of use. Major building systems as well as finishes will require
future replacement according to their scheduled maintenance timeline.
Planned projects such as carpet replacement may offer the opportunity
to revisit collection shelving, staff desks, and other elements in order
to implement evolving service/operational practices, as appropriate.
Life cycle maintenance of major building systems may provide the
opportunity to increase energy efficiency and/or building performance
(for example, lighting controls).
CASTRO VALLEY LIBRARY
“We love the Castro Valley
Library”
— community survey respondent
Page 48
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
CENTRAL ZONE
SAN LORENZO LIBRARY
The San Lorenzo Library is approximately 19,000 square feet. It
opened in 2015 as a major renovation and expansion of the previously
smaller library building. It is owned by the County of Alameda. As an
essentially new building, the San Lorenzo Library is not anticipated to
require major renovation during the planning horizon of this master
plan, although heavily worn finishes and furnishings may require
maintenance or replacement at some point. The building is designed
with a flexible infrastructure, including a shallow raised floor, in order
to facilitate modifications that may be needed over time to meet
changing community demand for services and technology.
SAN LORENZO LIBRARY
EAST ZONE
49
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN June 2016 — DRAFT REPORT
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – EAST ZONE
The Dublin Library is the only full-service ACL location in the East Zone.
Dublin has experienced rapid growth over the last few decades, and
currently has a population of 53,836 residents per the 2016 California
Department of Finance study. ABAG forecasts Dublin’s population to
grow to 63,500 by the year 2030.
No new full-service libraries are proposed in this master plan for the
East Zone. ACL should continue to evaluate the feasibility and cost-
effectiveness of focused service strategies within the unincorporated
areas.
EAST ZONE
50
June 2016 — DRAFT REPORT ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
DUBLIN LIBRARY
The Dublin Library, owned by the City of Dublin, was designed with
expansion in mind. A portion of the overall 38,000 square foot building
has been partitioned separately and used as storage by the City since
the facility opened in 2003. During this time, the population has grown
by more than two-thirds and is projected to increase by another 25%
or more by 2030.
The community is feeling the need for more space at the Dublin
Library, and this master plan recommends that the full building should
be made available for operation by ACL. ACL’s upcoming strategic
planning effort should provide a framework for evaluating whether
to simply expand existing services at the Dublin Library into the new
space, or whether to take this opportunity to add new services.
When asked what should be a service priority for ACL, more than 80%
of community outreach participants at the Dublin Library answered
“children,” while “spaces for people,” technology, and materials to
check out were essentially tied at nearly 60% each.
DUBLIN LIBRARY
“We LOVE the Dublin Library!”
— community survey respondent
Page 51
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
NORTH ZONE
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS – NORTH ZONE
Albany is the only community within ACL’s North Zone, which is served
by the full-service Albany Library.
No new full-service libraries are proposed in this master plan for the
North Zone.
Page 52
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
NORTH ZONE
ALBANY LIBRARY
The first public library in Albany opened soon after the establishment
of the Alameda County Library system in 1910, as a takeout branch in a
small room on Solano Avenue. In 1913, the library moved into a shared
building with Albany City Hall. It moved again several times over the
years before finally settling into its current home at 1247 Marin Avenue,
which it shares with the City of Albany’s Parks & Recreation department.
Built with grant funding through the California State Library’s 1988
Construction and Renovation Bond Act (aka Proposition 85), the joint
library and community center opened to the public in 1994.
Growth in Albany has been relatively moderate, compared to other
East Bay communities. The U.S. Census estimates that the population
in 2010 was approximately 18,539. ABAG projects that future growth
will be slower in Albany than for Alameda County overall, increasing
approximately 8% to 21,000 people by the year 2030. Per U.S. Census
data, Albany is also a somewhat younger community than the Alameda
County average, with more than one-fourth of its population under the
age of 18, and less than 10% over the age of 65.
ALBANY LIBRARY
Page 53
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
NORTH ZONE
Participants in a public meeting at the Albany Library in March 2016
described Albany as a friendly, safe, and walkable community of
choice. It offers many civic, social, cultural, and recreational amenities
that attract young families and support residents throughout their
working and senior years. Albany is a community with a strong focus
on education, for which the Library is an important partner. The Library
also is a key employment resource, including job skills programs,
coaching services, and access to technology.
Community meeting participants reported that in addition to using
the Albany Library, they also use library branches in Berkeley, Oakland,
and even San Francisco based on hours, availability of materials,
and convenience to other destinations. Mapping of customer data
for checkouts at the Albany Library shows little cross-use with other
ACL locations – which is perhaps not surprising given its relative
geographic isolation from the rest of the ACL system – but does show
that the Albany Library is a destination for residents of neighboring
communities.
Community outreach participants at the Albany Library rated “materials
to check out” and “variety of spaces for people” as the top priorities
for service – more than at any other ACL location. Nearly two-thirds of
participants also said that children should be a priority for the Library.
Threshold Option – Service and System Updates
On a square foot per capita basis, the Albany Library appears to provide
sufficient capacity to serve the community now and for its projected
2030 population. At the Threshold level, the Albany Library should be
maintained at its current size on the main level of the shared building
with the community center.
As basic maintenance projects are implemented at the Albany Library
(for example, replacing finishes and furniture), there will also be the
opportunity to update the facility to improve library service and
operations. One opportunity would be to reconfigure space to provide
more seating, which was a top priority for community participants at an
outreach event at the Albany Library. Other service model opportunities
could include redesigned staff service points, updated signage, etc.
Target Option – Internal Expansion
There may be opportunities to reallocate some resources to the lower
level of the building in order to free up space on the main level, such
as for additional seating and/or a higher profile Friends of the Library
booksale area.
ALBANY LIBRARY
“Our library is one of the three
main reasons that we chose to
move from Berkeley to Albany. It is
one of the anchors of our lifestyle.
We want to preserve and improve
it for our current and future
population.”
— community survey respondent
Page 54
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION
Cynthia Hegedus, AlbanyDoreen Wehrenberg, Dublin
Lily Mei, Fremont
Maria “Sucy” Collazo, Newark
Pat Gascoscos, Union City
Michael Baldwin, Castro Valley
Karen Bridges, Member/at/Large
Cheryl Hoffman, San Lorenzo/Ashland/Cherryland
CITY & COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
Penelope Leach, City Manager, City of Albany
Ronnie Davis, Albany Library Advisory Board, City of Albany
Chris Foss, City Manager, City of Dublin
Doreen Wehrenberg, former Councilmember, City of Dublin
Hazel Wetherford, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Dublin
Lily Mei, Mayor, City of Fremont
Bill Harrison, former Mayor, City of Fremont
Jessica von Borck, Assistant City Manager, City of Fremont
Kelly Kline, Economic Development Dir./Chief Innovation Officer, City of Fremont
John Becker, City Manager, City of Newark
Terrance Grindall, Assistant City Manager, City of Newark
Pat Gacoscos, Councilmember, City of Union City
Tony Acosta, City Manager, City of Union City
Mark Evanoff, Deputy City Manager, City of Union City
Felix Lechner, Chair, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Lisa Zane, Vice Chair, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Tariq Ali, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Deepak Chhabra, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Yan Liu, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Chitraleka Vivek, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Shradha Menghrajani, Youth Commissioner, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
Patricia Finch, Friends of the Library Representative, Fremont Library Advisory Commission
STEERING COMMITTEE Cynthia Chadwick, County Librarian, Alameda County Library
Carmen Martinez, Interim County Librarian, Alameda County Library
Ben Gomberg, Principal Librarian, Branches & Extension, Alameda County Library
Albie Udom, Facilities/Projects, Alameda County Library
Carolyn Moskovits, Branch Manager, Castro Valley Library
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY STAFF
Marion Oldenhage
Tiona Smith
Felicia Tejada
Alicia Reyes
Asad Iqbal
Darshan Chattha
Peggy Watson
Page 55
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
APPENDIX
Kate Eppler
Lee Jouthas
Danielle Wilson
Adina Aguirre
Brian Edwards
Kathy Steel-Sabo
Christina Grove
Maria Magallon
Gina Rose
Deb Sica
Randy McDevitt-Parks
Sandy Nunes
Lisa Harris
MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT TEAM
GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH + PLANNING, INC.
David Schnee AIA AICP LEEDBD+C
Jill Eyres LEEDBD+CVance Stoner
BLINK!LAB
June A. Grant
MACK5
Cynthia Madrid
REDWOOD RESOURCES, INC.
Schenae’ Rourk
4228 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Oakland, CA 94609
(510) 326-2176
www.blink-lab.com
1900 Powell St.
Suite 470
Emeryville, CA 94603
(510) 595-3020
www.mack5.com
4100-10 Redwood Rd. #266
Oakland, CA 94619
(510) 516-0349
www.redwoodresources.net
211 Linden Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650) 871-0709
www.g4arch.com
Page 56
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
STRATEGIC VISION WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Adina Aguirre, Alameda County Library
Tariq Ali, Fremont Library Advisory Committee
Hermy Almonte, Mercy Housing
Carol Arata, Abode Services
Michael Baldwin, Alameda County Library Advisory Commission
Suzanne Barba, Eden Area League of Women Voters
Isabelle Beauchamp, Alameda County GSA
Rene’ Besold
Karen Bridges, Alameda County Library Advisory Commission
Tamia Brown, Alameda County WIB
Michael Cadrecha, Alameda County GSA
Giovanna Capone, REACH Ashland Youth Center
Inez Carrasco, Alameda County Library
Roger Caswell, Friends of the Castro Valley Library
Cindy Chadwock, Alameda County Library
Susan Choquette, Friends of the Castro Valley Library
Sucy Collazo, Alameda County Library Advisory Commission
Sunil Dhar, Alameda County Library Foundation
Lynn Dillon, San Lorenzo School District
Brian Edwards, Alameda County Library
Kate Eppler, Alameda County Library
Mark Evanoff, City of Union City
Stacy Fox-Myers, Fremont Unified School District
Pat Gacoscos, Union City Councilmember
Gil Garza, Washington Township Historical Society
Shammi Gill, Alameda County Library
Ben Gomberg, Alameda County Library
Paula Greer
Cynthia Hegedus, Alameda County Library Advisory Commission
Cheryl Hoffmann, San Lorenzo Village Homes Assn
Asad Iqbal, Alameda County Library
Ryan Jacinto, Alameda County Library
Margaret Jerene, First 5 Alameda
Ralph Johnson, Castro Valley Sanitary District
Lee Jouthas, Alameda County Library
Steven Kirk, San Lorenzo Village Homes Association
Kelly Kline, City of Fremont
Felix Lechner, Fremont Library Advisory Committee
Terry Liebowitz, Castro Valley Arts Foundation
Jennifer Lyell, San Lorenzo School District
Edward Lyke, Friends of Castro Valley Library
Carol Lyke, Friends of Castro Valley Library
Maria Magallon, Alameda County Library
Carmen Martinez, Alameda County Library
Don McCormick
Randy McDevitt-Parks, Alameda County Library
Page 57
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
APPENDIX
STRATEGIC VISION WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Lily Mei, City of Fremont Vice-Mayor
Doug Monson, Biblioteca/3M
Carolyn Moskovitz, Alameda County Library
Mike Murphy, Datanet IT
Con Nguyen, Biblioteca/3M
Marion Oldenhage, Alameda County Library
Penny Peck, San Lorenzo School District
Alicia Reyes, Alameda County Library
Raul Rodriguez, Alameda County Library
Rona Rothenburg, Alameda County GSA
Sarah Sammis, Friends of the Castro Valley Library
Paul Sanftner, Office of Supervisor Nate Miley
Suzanne Shenfil, City of Fremont
Al Skinner, Biblioteca/3M
Marsha Skinner, Friends of the Albany Library
Tiona Smith, Alameda County Library
Cossette Sun
Ian Tecson, Alameda County Library
Felicia Tejada, Alameda County Library
Albie Udom, Alameda County Library
Peggy Watson, Alameda County Library
Dean White, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office
Danielle Wilson, Alameda County Library
Aaron Wong
Dorothy Yanagi
Page 58
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 59
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 60
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 61
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 62
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 63
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 64
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 65
ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN 04 January 2017
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Page 66
04 January 2017 ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY MASTER SPACE PLAN
APPENDIX
COMMUNITY SURVEY
PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACT FEES
RESIDENTIAL
Primary
Unit
Second
Unit
Aquatic Center $531 $531
Civic Center 956 956
Community Buildings 3,677 3,677
Community Nature Parks, Improvements 1,299 1,299
Community Nature Parks, Land 520 520
Community Parks, Improvements 5,625 5,625
Community Parks, Land 8,766 8,766
Libraries 1,046 1,046
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements 1,343 1,343
Neighborhood Parks, Land 3,698 3,698
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEES $27,461 $27,461
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Aquatic Center $23 $30 $10
Civic Center 254 342 127
Community Buildings 159 213 79
Community Nature Parks, Improve. 257 345 128
Community Nature Parks, Land 104 140 51
Community Parks, Improvements 1,116 1,500 556
Community Parks, Land 1,739 2,336 867
Libraries 228 305 112
TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE (1) $3,880 $5,211 $1,930
(1) Fee is based on Land-Use Type per 1,000 s.f.
FIRE IMPACT FEE
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
(6.0 Units per
acre or less)
Multi-Family
(6.1 Units per
acre or more)
Second
Unit
Per Dwelling Unit $870 $544 $544
NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial Office Industrial
Land-Use Type (Per 1,000 s.f.) $131 $254 $112
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
F
e
e
s
F
e
e
b
y
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
Si
n
g
l
e
‐
F
a
m
i
l
y
&
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
Ot
h
e
r
Mu
l
t
i
‐
F
a
m
i
l
y
Se
n
i
o
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Pe
r
1
,
0
0
0
S
qua
r
e
F
e
e
t
Of
f
i
c
e
Pe
r
1
,
0
0
0
S
qua
r
e
F
e
e
t
Industrial
Pe
r
1
,
0
0
0
S
quare FeetSenior Service Facility Per 1,000 Square Feet
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
$3
3
6
$
2
0
5
$
1
2
2
$
1
2
$
1
6
$
6
$
5
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
$1
,
4
9
0
$
9
1
0
$
5
4
1
$
3
4
8
$
4
6
8
$
1
7
4
$
1
4
2
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
$3
,
7
3
6
$
2
,
2
8
1
$
1
,
3
5
8
$
1
4
1
$
1
9
0
$
7
1
$
5
8
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
a
t
u
r
e
P
a
r
k
s
,
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$2
8
6
$
1
7
5
$
1
0
4
$
4
9
$
6
7
$
2
4
$
2
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
N
a
t
u
r
e
P
a
r
k
s
,
L
a
n
d
$0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
s
,
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$4
,
5
2
3
$
2
,
7
6
1
$
1
,
6
4
4
$
7
8
6
$
1
,
0
5
5
$
3
9
1
$
3
2
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
s
,
L
a
n
d
$8
,
1
7
8
$
4
,
9
9
2
$
2
,
9
7
3
$
1
,
4
2
4
$
1
,
9
1
3
$
7
0
9
$
5
8
1
Li
b
r
a
r
y
$2
6
8
$
1
6
4
$
9
7
$
5
2
$
7
0
$
2
6
$
2
1
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
P
a
r
k
s
,
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$2
,
6
4
4
$
1
,
6
1
4
$
9
6
2
‐
‐
‐
‐
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
P
a
r
k
s
,
L
a
n
d
$3
,
6
8
3
$
2
,
2
4
8
$
1
,
3
3
9
‐
‐
‐
‐
TO
T
A
L
$
2
5
,
1
4
4
$
1
5
,
3
5
0
$
9
,
1
4
0
$
2
,
8
1
2
$
3
,
7
7
9
$
1
,
4
0
1
$
1
,
1
4
7
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
i
r
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
F
e
e
s
F
e
e
b
y
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
Si
n
g
l
e
‐
F
a
m
i
l
y
&
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
Ot
h
e
r
Mu
l
t
i
‐
F
a
m
i
l
y
Se
n
i
o
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Pe
r
1
,
0
0
0
S
qua
r
e
F
e
e
t
Of
f
i
c
e
Pe
r
1
,
0
0
0
S
qua
r
e
F
e
e
t
Industrial
Pe
r
1
,
0
0
0
S
quare FeetSenior Service Facility Per 1,000 Square Feet
Pe
r
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
$3
3
9
$
2
0
7
$
1
2
3
$
8
0
$
1
0
7
$
3
9
$
3
2
Appraisal Consulting
Assignment Report
for
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Prepared by:
Eric Roman, SR/WA, R/W-AC
Appraiser
September 2016
No. 16076
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
September 16, 2016
Ms. Lisa Hisatomi
Assistant Administrative Services Director/Budget
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Update of Impact Fee Study
Dear Ms. Hisatomi:
In accordance with our contract with the City of Dublin, a land value study has been made of the
Fair Market Value of portions of Dublin. The assignment covers 3,888 acres north of I-580 and
east of Tassajara Creek. The entire acreage is subject to a Specific Plan originally adopted in
1996. It was amended in 1997, and a portion revised in 2002 and again in 2013. The northern
portion of the Dublin Ranch Development has been developed with residential uses. The West
Dublin and Silvera Ranches are residential developments with considerable open space. An
additional area known as Schaefer Ranch is located in West Dublin, north of Interstate 580 at
Schaefer Ranch Road adjacent to Castro Valley.
This appraisal consulting assignment is subject to the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice, assumptions and limiting conditions set forth in the attached report.
The Appraiser did not make a personal inspection of the entire area that is the subject of this
report, bud did visit each section described. Additionally, aerial photography and satellite imaging
was used to view portions of the subject. The date of value is September 4, 2016. The
accompanying report is submitted for your review and approval for acquisition purposes and is
subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions included herein.
Sincerely,
Eric Roman, SR/WA, R/W-AC
State Certified General Appraiser
CA License No. AG025365
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Table of Contents
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND ESTIMATE OF JUST COMPENSATION
SUBJECT LOCATION MAP
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................................... 1
SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT/LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................... 1
INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL ............................................................................................................... 2
CLIENT AND INTENDED USER OF THE APPRAISAL ........................................................................................... 2
DATE OF VALUATION .................................................................................................................................... 2
COMPETENCY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 2
MARKET VALUE DEFINED ............................................................................................................................. 3
REASONABLE EXPOSURE TIME ..................................................................................................................... 3
CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISER ..................................................................................................................... 4
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 6
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 7
HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 8
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 9
GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 10
CITY DATA ................................................................................................................................................ 10
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY IN DUBLIN ............................................................................................................ 10
AREAS STUDIED ........................................................................................................................................ 13
MARKET SALES APPROAC H – GENERAL SCOPE & METHODOLOGY ............................................. 15
VALUATION CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 17
ADDENDA
COMPARABLE LAND SALE SUMMARIES
APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Introduction
Purpose of the Assignment
Provide the City of Dublin with ranges of estimated unit land values of vacant land within various
land use areas of land uses proposed in the City of Dublin Specific Plan (and/or the Dublin Ranch,
East Dublin Ranch, Silvera Ranch and Schaefer Ranch and other areas described in the report)
as of the effective date of valuation September4, 2013, and based on the assumptions and limiting
conditions stated in this report.
Scope of Assignment/Limitations
This assignment by the client is to analyze and report estimated values both as a range of unit
land values and as “blended unit” land value of certain areas within portions of Dublin. These will
be used in the City’s determining facility impact fees for various parcels. This appraisal process
or development conforms to the premise that reasonable Appraisers would pursue this
assignment in a like manner.
The Appraiser performed a field review of the subject property areas to determine the condition
and utility of the land in the areas. Searches of public records, real estate listings and sales
services were employed to obtain data. Brokers and owners of similar type properties were
interviewed to assist in making estimates of market conditions, both general and specific to
Dublin. Relevant property sales were researched and confirmed.
The Appraiser has concluded that the report format is a restricted type. This provides sufficient
data for understanding while minimizing those reporting areas, which are already known to the
client or do not reduce the reliability of the analysis. The Appraiser’s intent is to provide enough
data and analysis so as to have no misleading information and provide conclusions of high
reliability for determining appropriate fees to be collected from developers as they apply for
development of a specific parcel or parcels of land or for credits to be used as offsets against
appropriate fees. This analysis is not valid for property acquisition purposes nor is it valid
for value on any specific parcel or ownership within the Study Area.
Limitations include the following:
1. The estimated ranges of units of value of the vacant land within the various
areas of specified land uses and arbitrary subdivisions into designated sectors
thereof made by the Appraiser as shown in this appraisal consulting
assignment report: Assume they are applicable to only those areas of a
property or land area lying outside of and in excess of the legally or typically
required dedication areas imposed by the City (i.e., City of Porterville v. Young
case valuations are excluded).
2. Land use designations and the estimated highest and best use of the land by
the Appraiser are based on designations in the City’s Specific Plan and the
Development Plan as approved by the City, updated in 2013.
1
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
3. Land use areas are assumed to be in a raw land physical state with adequate
public or private road access and public utilities fronting at least one full
length of one side of each land use area unless otherwise stated in this
report.
4. The unit value ranges and the estimated specific overall unit land values for
the respective land use areas cannot be used to estimate the Market Value of
any specific parcel of ownership or subdivided land parcel. The ranges and
the specific overall or blended unit values reported are not an appraisal of any
specific parcel. They are based only on general indicated land use areas and
opinions of highest and best use.
Intended Use of the Appraisal
The intended use of the report is to provide the City of Dublin with land value conclusions of high
reliability for determining appropriate fees to be collected from developers as they apply for
development of a specific parcel or parcels of land or for credits to be used as offsets against
appropriate fees. The appraisal report is subject to administrative review by the Client.
Client and Intended User of the Appraisal
The Client and the intended user of this appraisal report is the City of Dublin.
Date of Valuation
The property in this report has been valued as of September 4, 2016.
Competency Statement
The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice require that “prior to accepting an
assignment or entering into an agreement to perform any assignment, an appraiser must properly
identify the problem to be addressed and have the knowledge and experience to complete the
assignment competently.” If the appraiser is not qualified, this must be disclosed to the Client and
all steps necessary to complete the assignment competently must be taken and described.
The Appraiser responsible for the analysis and conclusions of value for the subject property in
this report has the proper background and experience to perform the assignment in a competent
manner. This is based on the Appraiser’s appraisal experience in valuation analysis of properties
similar to the subject property. The Appraiser’s qualifications are included in the Addenda and
list appraisal education and experience.
2
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Market Value Defined
(The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, published by the Appraisal Institute)
“The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under
all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably
and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the
consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he or she considers
his or her own best interest;
3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special
or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.”
Reasonable Exposure Time
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP 2016/2017 edition: Definitions)
defines exposure time as follows:
“EXPOSURE TIME: estimated length of time that the property interest being appraised
would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale
at market value on the effective date of the appraisal.
Comment: Exposure time is a retrospective opinion based on an analysis of past events
assuming a competitive and open market.”
Exposure time is presumed to be a reasonably adequate and sufficient period of time with
adequate effort necessary to result in a sale fulfilling the definition of value. It is presumed to be
a period immediately preceding the effective date of value. However, based on the intended use
and non-subject specific nature of the scope of this assignment, developing an opinion of
exposure time is not required. Therefore, an opinion of exposure time has not been developed for
this appraisal.
3
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Certification of Appraiser
I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
I have personally inspected the property that is the subject of this report.
The statements of fact contained in the appraisal report are true and correct, and the information
upon which the opinions expressed therein are based is correct; subject to the Limiting Conditions
therein set forth.
Neither my employment nor my compensation for completing this assignment is in any way
contingent upon the values reported herein. My compensation is not contingent upon the
developing or reporting of predetermined values or direction in value that favors the cause of the
Client, the amounts of the value opinions, the attainment of a stipulated result or the occurrence
of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no
personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
I have performed similar services as an Appraiser regarding the property that is the subject of this
report within a three-year period immediately preceding the acceptance of this assignment.
Reports were provided in 2006 and 2013.
I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved
with this assignment.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported Assumptions
and Limiting Conditions, and are my own personal, impartial, unbiased professional analyses,
opinions, and conclusions.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of
Professional Ethics and Standards of Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which includes
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by
its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, I have completed the Standards
and Ethics Education Requirement for Candidates of the Appraisal Institute.
The opinion of fair market value for the subject property as of the date of valuation is set forth in
the Valuation Summary and is based upon my independent appraisal and the exercise of
professional judgment.
No one provided significant real property assistance to the person signing this Certification.
I hereby certify that my opinion of the market value of the property appraised as described in this
report is included herein and that my opinions and conclusions were made subject to the
4
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions in this report and without collusion, coercion or direction
from anyone as to value.
September 16, 2016
Date Eric Roman, SR/WA, R/W-AC
State Certified General Appraiser
CA License No. AG025365
Date of Value:
September 4, 2016
5
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
The following Assumptions and Limiting Conditions have been relied upon and used in making
this appraisal and estimating the respective values required by the purpose of the appraisal and
its intended use.
• No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the property is
assumed to be good and marketable, unless otherwise stated in this report.
• The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances, unless
otherwise stated in this report.
• Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed, unless
otherwise stated in this report.
• The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is
given for its accuracy.
• Sketches, plat maps, or photographs contained in this report are included to assist the
reader in visualizing properties and no survey has been made of the property by the
Appraiser.
• No responsibility is assumed for discovery of hidden or non-apparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or the structures that render it more or less valuable. Encroachment of
real property improvements is assumed to not exist. No responsibility is assumed for
arranging for engineering studies or a survey, which may be required to discover these
conditions.
• It is assumed that the subject is in full compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and
local environmental regulations and laws, unless otherwise stated in this report.
• It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been
complied with, unless nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this
report.
• It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, or other legislative or
administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or
organization have been, or can be, obtained or renewed for any use on which the value
conclusions contained in this report are based.
• The Appraiser is not a soil expert. The existing soil and substructure has been assumed
adequate for existing or proposed uses unless contrary information is provided and
contained in this report. It is advisable to have a soil analysis and report completed by a
qualified soil engineer, or other qualified expert, so that any interested party will become
knowledgeable as to the important soil information including seismic data, soil
contaminants, type of fill, if any, or other relevant matters.
6
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
• Unless otherwise stated in this report, it is assumed that there are no hazardous or toxic
substances in the soil comprising the subject land.
• Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific
compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in
conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence
of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature and would restrict
access by disabled individuals may adversely affect the property’s values, marketability,
or utility.
• The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements
applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and
improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if
so used.
• Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication.
It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is
addressed without the written prior consent of the Appraiser, and in any event, only with
proper written qualification and only in its entirety.
• The delivery and/or possession of this report does not require the Appraiser to attend or
give testimony at any meeting, public hearing, pretrial conference, deposition or court trial
unless there is a written agreement between the Appraiser and the party possessing or
relying on this report or requesting such services.
• Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to
value, the identity of the Appraiser, or the firm with which the Appraiser is connected) shall
be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other
media.
Project Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
• Preliminary title reports were not available. Property boundaries were not staked by
survey and the Appraisers utilized provided maps. Ownership data and history was not
included in this report as not being necessary for the purpose and intended use of this
report.
• This valuation analysis is for the sole use of the City of Dublin for determining the amount
of facility impact fees to be imposed or offsetting credits. Final determination of any fees
or credits to be done by City. The valuations are to be a guide for setting any individual
fee or credit.
• It is assumed that there are no hazardous or toxic substances in the soils comprising the
subject ownerships or sectors.
7
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
• The valuations and analyses are NOT site specific. No existing or anticipated legal parcels
were considered in this process. The valuation sectors or areas are a mixture of potentials
for a variety of uses, including low density residential, higher density residential,
commercial retail, commercial offices, business parks and public uses such as schools,
parks and open space.
• The overall acreage for the appraised areas was provided by the City of Dublin. The
Appraiser has relied upon these measurements and use breakdowns in forming an opinion
to value. This valuation analysis assumes that each sector described has reasonable
street exposure and access. This is primarily along proposed major streets such as Dublin
Boulevard, Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Croak
Road.
• For impact fees or credits, this valuation analysis and conclusion assumes that typical
dedications have occurred or will occur at no cost to the City. The residual land and unit
values reflect a more finished condition to the land.
• Some areas are within an area of the Livermore Airport use restriction zone. Should a
different use be approved other than what is proposed, a revision to those areas may be
in order.
Hypothetical Conditions
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP 2016/2017 edition: Definitions)
defines hypothetical condition as follows:
“HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: a condition, directly related to a specific assignment,
which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the
assignment results, but is used for the purpose of analysis.
Comment: Hypothetical conditions are contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or
economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the
property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an
analysis.”
The following hypothetical conditions are used for this appraisal and may affect the assignment
results:
• Properties appraised are assumed to be entitled for development to their highest and best
use. Portions of the properties included in this assignment are not entitled and the cost
and time to obtain building permits and development approvals is not factored into the
values presented. If this hypothetical condition were not in place, the current values
presented on a per unit basis would be lower for properties that have not completed the
development entitlement process.
8
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Extraordinary Assumptions
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP 2016/2017 edition: Definitions)
defines extraordinary assumptions as follows:
“EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION: an assumption, directly related to a specific
assignment, as of the effective date of the assignment results, which, if found to be false,
could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.
Comment: Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information
about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about
conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the
integrity of data used in an analysis.”
The following extraordinary assumptions are used for this appraisal and may affect the
assignment results:
• None
9
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
General Information
City Data
Dublin is located about 35 miles east of San Francisco, conveniently situated at the crossroads
of highways 580 and 680 in the Livermore-Amador Valley.
Dublin's location at the intersection of two (2) major stagecoach routes and later two (2) major
freeways has sustained and at times, spurred its growth as a residential and business community
from early days. In the 1960’s, the San Ramon Village development brought Dublin into the
modern era. The 70’s and 80’s saw continued growth and many new businesses and new
housing. On November 3, 1981, Dublin voters approved a measure to incorporate Dublin as
Alameda County’s 14th city. Dublin is now governed by a five-member council, which includes
an elected mayor.
Development History in Dublin
Source (City of Dublin):
Most of the land in Dublin and San Ramon was granted in 1835 to Jose Maria Amador, one of
the area’s earliest settlers. In the 1850’s, Amador sold portions of his 17,600-acre holding to
James Dougherty, Michael Murray, and Jeremiah Fallon, forming a hamlet that grew slowly during
most of the next century.
During World War II, the Navy commissioned Camp Parks to house 10,000 servicemen. Over
the years, Camp Parks was leased to Alameda County for Santa Rita Jail; the Air Force for a
basic training center; and, the United States Army. In 1980, the Army officially designated Camp
Parks as a mobilization and training center and it has been a semi-active installation center ever
since as the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area.
The Tri-Valley had few tract homes or commuters until 1960 when the Volk-McLain Company
began work on San Ramon Village building several thousand moderately-priced homes
advertised as “city close; country quiet.” Urban services were provided by annexation of San
Ramon Village to what is now the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).By 1970, four-
fifths of the homes in Dublin’s Primary Planning Area were complete.
In 1967, an effort to incorporate Dublin was denied by the Alameda County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) as contrary to County policy supporting only one city in the east
valley. A subsequent referendum on annexation of Dublin to Pleasanton failed in Dublin. Before
the 1981 incorporation election was held, consideration was given to detaching Dublin from
DSRSD and making it a “full-service” city, but keeping the existing arrangement was simpler and
the “full-service” choice did not appear on the ballot. In November 1981, 75 percent of the votes
cast were for incorporation.
Upon incorporation the City of Dublin was 3.54 square miles with approximately 4,428 housing
units and an estimated household population of 13,700. In 1986, the Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area (Camp Parks) was annexed into Dublin adding 4.24 square miles to the City. By
10
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
1991, after a series of smaller annexations on the west side of Dublin, the City grew to 8.46 square
miles, had approximately 6,904 housing units and an estimated household population of 19,755.In
1995, Dublin started growing eastward with the annexation of 2.4 square miles. Over the next 15
years, the City would grow to 14.62 square miles. In 2010, Dublin had approximately 15,782
housing units and an estimated household population of 40,262.
Eastern Extended Planning Area
The Eastern Extended Planning Area is roughly 4,300 acres and is generally located south and
east of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks).Since 1995, the Eastern Extended
Planning Area has developed rapidly creating a distinctive and well-balanced community that
complements the remainder of the City. The extension of Dublin Boulevard eastward is the
physical link that connects the Eastern Extended Planning Area to the rest of Dublin. Despite
being separated from the Primary Planning Area by Camp Parks, the Eastern Extended Planning
Area has provided a variety of development opportunities that has enhanced the residential,
employment, retail, recreation and cultural character of the entire City.
Development within the Eastern Extended Planning Area has been responsible and
environmentally sensitive from both a local and regional perspective. On the local level,
development has responded to community needs for housing, employment and leisure while
respecting the natural constraints of the area. Visually sensitive ridge lands and biologically
sensitive habitat areas have been protected and incorporated into an open space system that
preserves key elements of the areas physical character. Higher development intensities have
been concentrated in the more level areas of the valley with lower densities nestled in the hill
areas. Hillside grading has been carefully regulated to discourage major alteration of distinctive
hill forms. Commercial and employment-generating uses are located near the freeway and transit
lines to facilitate efficient transportation.
The Eastern Extended Planning Area includes a balance of employment and housing
opportunities in terms of both quantity and economic characteristics in order to encourage less
import or export of labor which results in increased traffic congestion and air pollution. The
development pattern in the Eastern Extended Planning Area facilitates the use of transit both on
a local and regional level.
The General Plan includes policies that are specifically geared to the unique qualities and
opportunities of the Eastern Extended Planning Area. However, a specific plan(s), such as the
adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, shall be required before any development is approved in
the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also includes policies
and action programs which further the goals and policies of the General Plan and are designed
specifically for the development of eastern Dublin.
Western Extended Planning Area
The Western Extended Planning Area is roughly 3,200 acres and is generally located west of the
Primary Planning Area. This Planning Area presents a unique opportunity for the City of Dublin,
being part of an open space corridor which stretches from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara
11
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
County. With its steep terrain and scenic oak woodlands, the Western Extended Planning Area
has important open space value for Dublin and the region.
At the same time, portions of the Western Extended Planning Area have provided a unique
opportunity for carefully planned development in the southwestern portion of the Planning Area.
Major ridgelines screen most of the development from key off-site viewpoints resulting in
opportunities to provide housing and recreation without major disruption to the scenic values in
the surrounding area. Clustering development has increased land use efficiency and protected
key ridgelines, woodland areas and other important features. The General Plan includes policies
that are specifically geared to the unique qualities and opportunities of the Western Extended
Planning Area.
An Urban Limit Line was adopted by initiative on November 7, 2000 for a portion of the Western
Extended Planning Area. The Urban Limit Line is coterminous with the City limit line as of the
effective date of the Initiative. Pursuant to the Initiative, lands west of the Urban Limit Line are
required to be designated as Rural Residential/Agriculture on the General Plan Land Use Map
(Figure 1-1) for a period of 30 years from the effective date of initiative Resolution 209-00.The
intent of the Urban Limit Line is to protect the natural resources of the western hills by guiding
development to areas of Dublin that are less constrained and where urban services can be
provided in a more efficient and cost effective manner. The City will not approve or recommend
approval of the permanent use or extension of City services or facilities, including but not limited
to, utilities or roads, to support or facilitate urban development beyond the Urban Limit Line. The
location of the Urban Limit Line may only be changed by a vote of the people of Dublin during the
effective period, and only following review and approval of a General Plan Amendment by the
City Council. Any request to change the Urban Limit Line must be accompanied by a request to
amend the land use designation to an urban designation.
Dublin Crossing Planning Area
The Dublin Crossing Planning Area boundaries are coterminous with the Dublin Crossing Specific
Plan boundary. The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan is a plan for the orderly development of
approximately 189 acres that includes 8.7 acres owned by Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority, an 8.9 acre parcel owned by NASA, and an approximately 172 acre portion of the 2,485-
acre Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) in the center of Dublin, north of
Interstate 580 and Dublin Boulevard. The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan addresses the future
development of the project area, which includes demolition of the existing buildings and other
improvements on the site and construction of a residential mixed-use project as described in the
Specific Plan.
12
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Areas Studied
The following chart depicts the areas studied in this report:
Area Location Planned Uses
Area
Size(s)
(Acres)
Area
Total
Size
(Acres)
High Density Residential 120.52
General Commercial 5.69
Public/Open Space 365.84
High Density Residential 34.60
Medium/High Density Residential 38.90
Medium Density Residential 60.20
Low Density Residential 89.20
General Commercial 133.75
Campus Office 79.05
Industrial 65.00
Public/Open Space 184.90
Casterson Medium Density Residential 19.90 19.90
Tassajara Meadows Medium Density Residential 11.70 11.70
Greenbriar Medium Density Residential 64.35 64.35
Medium Density Residential 35.70
Low Density Residential 109.80
Private Recreation 2.00
Public/Open Space 62.50
Low Density Residential 135.30
Rural Residential/Agricultural 71.50
Public/Open Space 144.70
Medium Density Residential 20.00
Low Density Residential 33.40
Public/Open Space 35.10
Medium Density Residential 105.00
Public/Open Space 18.10
High Density Residential 25.00
Medium/High Density Residential 26.20
Neighborhood Commercial 22.00
Public/Open Space 11.10
High Density Residential 23.60
Medium/High Density Residential 8.60
Medium Density Residential 91.80
Public/Open Space 86.40
Campus Office 16.01
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.93
General Commercial 11.11
General Commercial/Campus Office 15.22
Campus Office 44.60
Industrial 41.20
General Commercial 54.40
Medium-High Density Res.8.76
High Density Res.6.46
Neighborhood Commercial 3.47
Medium-Density Res.*1.79
Public/Semi-Public*1.28
Medium/High Density Residential 20.10
Medium Density Residential 54.60
Low Density Residential 18.80
Public/Open Space 90.60
Medium/High Density Residential 23.80
Medium Density Residential 60.10
Low Density Residential 403.60
Mixed Use 6.40
General Commercial 72.10
Campus Office 72.70
Industrial 61.30
Rural Residential/Agricultural 142.90
Public/Open Space 291.50
Total 3887.13
210.40
84.30
76.16
210.00
351.50
65.27
85.80
184.10
1,134.40
Dublin Ranch (Area F Toll)S. of Gleason, N. of
Central, E. of
Brannigan, W. of
Lockhart
123.10
492.05
ACSPA
North of Interstate 580,
west of Tassajara
Road and to the south
and east of Camp
Parks
685.60
Dublin Ranch (Area H)
Fallon Village
E. of Fallon Road, N.
of I-580
Dublin Ranch (Area G)
E. of Brannigan, W. of
Fallon, S. of Central, N
of Dublin
Dublin Ranch (Area B)E. of Lockhart, W. of
Fallon, N. of Central,
S. of Gleason
Diamanto
S. of Gleason, E. of
Tassajara, W. of
Keegan
*Area north of Gleason
Dublin Ranch (Area F North)N. of Gleason, S. of
Antone, E. of
Brannigan, W. of
Lockhart
North of Gleason
Boulevard; East of
Tassajara
Dublin Ranch (Phase 1)East of Tassajara,
north of South Dublin
Ranch Drive/Antone
S. of Dublin, W. of
Keegan, E. of
Brannigan
Dublin Ranch (Area C)S. off Dublin, W. of
Fallon, E. of Keegan
Dublin Ranch West
W. of Tassajara, N. of
Dublin Ranch Dr.
Schaefer Ranch North of I-580 @
Scaefer Ranch Road
88.50
Dublin Ranch (Area A)Both sides of Fallon,
but only east side,
south of Antone
13
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
The following map depicts the allowable land uses designated within the city of Dublin:
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
District
Total Allowable
Units Minimum Density Acres
Retail 400 22 18.18
Village Parkway 200 15 13.33
Tranist Oriented District**1900 30 63.33
**shall also not exceed 85 units per acre Total 94.84
District
Total Remaining
Units Minimum Density Acres
Retail 305 22 13.86
Village Parkway 200 15 13.33
Tranist Oriented District**1214 30 40.47
**shall also not exceed 85 units per acre Total 67.66
14
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Market Sales Approach – General Scope & Methodology
Areas of Influence and Search
The subject area under study and for which estimates of unit land values are to be made consists
of approximately 3,888 acres at the eastern side of Dublin abutting and north of I-580 as well as
Schaefer Ranch. The areas to the south and east, across I-580 from the study area, are within
the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. The study areas are under the primary influences of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and now within the city limits. One of the primary influences on the
subject area is the ongoing development of the former Camp Parks site by sales of the Surplus
Property Authority of Alameda County of land adjacent to and westerly of the subject area.
The subject area has numerous areas of various designated land uses within in it. These include
parks and open space, neighborhood squares or parks, schools, low, medium, medium high and
high density residential, commercial offices, general commercial for retail and other potential
uses.
Due to the wide variety of designated land uses within the subject area, sales and listing data was
sought regarding properties with similar variation of several different land uses or with individual
land use potentials similar to a specific sub-area of the entire subject area. Generally, data was
obtained from research in the public records, subscription services and inquiry with owners,
developers and public officials. The data obtainable is reflective of somewhat broader categories
of medium density and high density residential subdivisions, general commercial and sites used
by specific parties for their own respective commercial retail or office building and light industrial
uses. These will be employed to indicate the range of the unit land value estimated for the
respective areas delineated and used in the following valuation analyses portion of this report.
The discussions with developers and public officials and the Appraiser’s observations verify the
continued residential development of lands along the I-580 corridor after a period of decline.
Commercial office activity within the past couple of years has been relatively stagnant. However
the market has experienced strong retail and medical oriented use demand.
The search for sales and listing information was initially focused on the northerly side of I-580,
the area considered to be generally primarily influential on the subject area under study. The
search was expanded to other areas with actual or potential land uses similar to those designated
for the subject area. The data obtained and used in the analyses to estimate the most probable
price ranges for the various areas as delineated by AR/WS are contained in the following section
of this report in a summary format and by individual comparable data sheets in the appendix. The
delineation of specific areas for valuation purposes were made by AR/WS and thereafter
discussed with the client as to their relevancy for the client’s intended use of the values and the
report for the subject area. It was determined that the areas are compatible with the client’s needs
and intended uses.
15
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
It is important to note that sales and listing data used, is interpreted by the Appraiser to indicate
value ranges as of the effective date of valuation. No attempt has been made to project or
estimate probable prices at future dates whether soon or years in the future. No attempt has been
made to predict the time necessary to absorb any of the delineated land areas within the subject
area into actual development. Also, no attempt is made to discount the estimated values as of
the effective date of valuation for the costs of holding any area or parcel of land until its
development sometime in the future.
Valuation Summary
The following Valuation Summary table indicates a price per square foot value for each type of
planned use within the each area. Based on the proportion of each property type within a
particular area, and the value conclusion of each type, weighted value on a per square foot basis,
is concluded each of the identified areas. The data analyzed for these conclusions is summarized
in the Addenda of this report.
16
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Valuation Conclusions
Area Location Planned Uses
Area
Size(s)
(Acres)
Area
Total
Size
(Acres)
Value Per
Sq. Ft.
(2016)
Weighted
Value Per
Sq. Ft.
(2016)
High Density Residential 120.52 $115
General Commercial 5.69 $22
Public/Open Space 365.84 $2
High Density Residential 34.60 $78
Medium/High Density Residential 38.90 $68
Medium Density Residential 60.20 $53
Low Density Residential 89.20 $34
General Commercial 133.75 $16
Campus Office 79.05 $25
Industrial 65.00 $12
Public/Open Space 184.90 $2
Casterson Medium Density Residential 19.90 19.90 $68
Tassajara Meadows Medium Density Residential 11.70 11.70 $68
Greenbriar Medium Density Residential 64.35 64.35 $68
Medium Density Residential 35.70 $74
Low Density Residential 109.80 $38
Private Recreation 2.00 $3
Public/Open Space 62.50 $2
Low Density Residential 135.30 $38
Rural Residential/Agricultural 71.50 $15
Public/Open Space 144.70 $2
Medium Density Residential 20.00 $46
Low Density Residential 33.40 $38
Public/Open Space 35.10 $2
Medium Density Residential 105.00 $46
Public/Open Space 18.10 $2
High Density Residential 25.00 $98
Medium/High Density Residential 26.20 $52
Neighborhood Commercial 22.00 $28
Public/Open Space 11.10 $2
High Density Residential 23.60 $98
Medium/High Density Residential 8.60 $78
Medium Density Residential 91.80 $56
Public/Open Space 86.40 $2
Campus Office 16.01 $25
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.93 $36
General Commercial 11.11 $18
General Commercial/Campus Office 15.22 $22
$25.53
$39.53
$52.79
$39.44
$26.97
$29.91
$24.55
$68.00
$33.07
$18.50
210.40
84.30
210.00
351.50
65.27
Dublin Ranch (Area F Toll)S. of Gleason, N. of
Central, E. of
Brannigan, W. of
Lockhart
123.10
492.05
ACSPA
North of Interstate 580,
west of Tassajara
Road and to the south
and east of Camp
Parks
685.60
Dublin Ranch (Area H)
Dublin Ranch (Area G)
E. of Brannigan, W. of
Fallon, S. of Central, N
of Dublin
Dublin Ranch (Area B)E. of Lockhart, W. of
Fallon, N. of Central,
S. of Gleason
Dublin Ranch (Area F North)N. of Gleason, S. of
Antone, E. of
Brannigan, W. of
Lockhart
North of Gleason
Boulevard; East of
Tassajara
Dublin Ranch (Phase 1)East of Tassajara,
north of South Dublin
Ranch Drive/Antone
VALUATION SUMMARY (Updated June 2016)
S. of Dublin, W. of
Keegan, E. of
Brannigan
Schaefer Ranch North of I-580 @
Scaefer Ranch Road
88.50
Dublin Ranch (Area A)Both sides of Fallon,
but only east side,
south of Antone
17
City of Dublin
Update of Impact Fee Study
Conclusions Continued
Campus Office 44.60 $25
Industrial 41.20 $18
General Commercial 54.40 $18
Medium-High Density Res.8.76 $72
High Density Res.6.46 $89
Neighborhood Commercial 3.47 $28
Medium-Density Res.*1.79 $72
Public/Semi-Public*1.28 $2
Medium/High Density Residential 20.10 $78
Medium Density Residential 54.60 $62
Low Density Residential 18.80 $48
Public/Open Space 90.60 $2
Medium/High Density Residential 23.80 $78
Medium Density Residential 60.10 $62
Low Density Residential 403.60 $48
Mixed Use 6.40 $52
General Commercial 72.10 $18
Campus Office 72.70 $25
Industrial 61.30 $18
Rural Residential/Agricultural 142.90 $8
Public/Open Space 291.50 $2
$21.64
$31.69
$32.79
$27.53
76.16
85.80
184.10
1,134.40
Fallon Village
E. of Fallon Road, N.
of I-580
Diamanto
S. of Gleason, E. of
Tassajara, W. of
Keegan
*Area north of Gleason
Dublin Ranch (Area C)S. off Dublin, W. of
Fallon, E. of Keegan
Dublin Ranch West
W. of Tassajara, N. of
Dublin Ranch Dr.
Downtown Dublin Specific Plan
District
Total Allowable
Units Minimum Density Acres
Value
Per Sq.
Ft. (2016)
Weighted
Value Per
Sq. Ft.
(2016)
Retail 400 22 18.18 $56
Village Parkway 200 15 13.33 $89
Tranist Oriented District**1900 30 63.33 $115
**shall also not exceed 85 units per acre Total 94.84
$100.04
District
Total Remaining
Units Minimum Density Acres
Value
Per Sq.
Ft. (2016)
Value Per
Sq. Ft.
(2016)
Retail 305 22 13.86 $56
Village Parkway 200 15 13.33 $89
Tranist Oriented District**1214 30 40.47 $115
**shall also not exceed 85 units per acre Total 67.66
$97.79
18
ADDENDA
COMPARABLE LAND SALE SUMMARIES
Residential Sales
RL-01 Residential 7020 Tassajara Blvd.Jose Vargas $13,680,000 3/14/2016 12.93 563,231 5.4 PD Medium $1,058,005 $24.29
Dublin, CA Enclave, Inc.
986-0004-002-01, -3 60809
RL-02 Residential 1587 2nd St.Deharo Group LLC $800,000 1/25/2016 0.34 15,002 23.53 DSP Downtown $2,352,941 $53.33
Livermore, CA Mancini Properties LLC
097-0024-001-01 16031
RL-03 Residential 12777 Alcosta Blvd.San Ramon Church of the Nazarene $4,500,000 10/9/2015 2.6 113,256 NA Quasi Mixed Use $1,730,769 $39.73
San Ramon, CA Watermark Retirement Communities Public
213-750-006 210125
RL-03 Residential 1605 Rivera Avenue O'Brien Family Trust $5,000,000 10/1/2015 0.5 21,780 96 M-U Mixed Use $10,000,000 $229.57
Walnut Creek, CA Development Solutions Riv. LLC
174-150-027 203773
RL-04 Residential 512 Hemme Ave.The Presbytery of San Francisco $2,850,000 9/330/15 5.7 248,292 0.18 R-20 Low Density $500,000 $11.48
Alamo, CA Talmont Homes
198-100-003 203328
RL-04 Residential 207 Ygnacio Valley Rd.Querio Trust $7,018,000 5/14/2015 1.33 58,109 NA MFHD Multifamily $5,276,692 $120.77
Walnut Creek, CA Northwestern Mutual Life High Density
174-220-049 95182
RL-05 Residential 1561 Pine St.1561 Pine St. LLC $360,000 3/2/2015 0.28 12,197 NA M-1 Multifamily $1,285,714 $29.52
Concord, CA PSP Concord LLC
128-010-079 35076
RL-06 Residential 4664-4682 Augustine St.Rayver LLC $1,800,000 11/13/2014 0.56 24,298 5.36 RM-4 $3,214,286 $74.08
Pleasanton, CA Robert Allen
094-0156-017-04, -05, 272890
094-0156-016-01
RL-07 Residential 1716-1738 Riviera Ave.Oliver Family Trust $2,000,000 10/6/2014 0.41 17,999 NA M-U Mixed Use $4,878,049 $111.12
Walnut Creek, CA Riveral Family Apartments LP
174-140-019 & -025 171775
RL-08 Residential 1330 Isabel Ave.Legacy Real Estate & Assoc.$4,500,000 8/18/2014 5.14 223,898 3.69 R-2 Medium $875,486 $20.10
Livermore, CA Ponderosa Homes II, Inc.Density
099-0283-003-07 229110
RL-09 Residential 1039 Ridge Park Dr.Kunz Family Trust $1,050,000 4/30/2014 2.45 106,722 2.04 R-1 Low Density $428,571 $9.84
Concord, CA Koart Residential, Inc.
130-090-030 67514
Medium
Density
Parcel Size
Acres(s)/Sq. Ft.Zoning General Plan Price/Acre Price/SFDensity
(DU/Acre)Comp. No.Type of Property Address/APN(s)Grantor/Grantee/Document Number Price COE
Commercial Sales
CL-01 Commercial 7576 Southfront Rd.3M Properties LLC $750,000 Pending 1.28 55,757 CS Commercial $585,938 $13.45
Livermore, CA Pending Sale
099B-8110-046-00 NA
CL-02 Commercial Las Positas Rd Piyoosh & Naha Jalan $725,000 6/1/2016 3.27 142,441 CB $221,713 $5.09
Livermore, CA Pan Du & Zhaomin Huang
099-0015-029-00 137306
CL-03 Commercial 7400 Amador Valley Blvd.3K Investments, Inc.$465,000 12/31/2015 0.26 11,112 Retial Commercial $1,788,462 $41.85
Dublin, CA Precious Rentals LLC
941-0210-001-04 340984
CL-03 Commercial Dublin Blvd. & Chabot Corrie Development Corp.$2,500,000 11/4/2015 2 87,120 PD Commercial $1,250,000 $28.70
Dublin, CA Hounslow Trust
941-0550-019-12 296229
CL-04 Commercial 5905 Northfront Rd.Enea Properties Co.$679,500 10/22/2015 0.99 43,124 CS Commercial $686,364 $15.76
Livermore, CA Wood Brothers Properties LLC
099B-5050-006-05 285277
CL-04 Commercial Dublin Blvd. E. of Grafston S&V LLC $4,000,000 10/23/2015 12.23 532,739 PUD Commerical $327,065 $7.51
Dublin, CA Patel Family Trust
985-0061-010-00 285727
CL-05 Commercial 200 Greenville Rd.Greenville Investors II LLC $1,355,500 5/15/2015 2.39 104,108 C Commercial $567,155 $13.02
Livermore, CA Karamjit & Rajinder Nihar
099B-8110-078-00 129774
CL-06 Commercial Southfront Rd.Qi LLC $450,000 1/26/2015 1.29 56,192 CS $348,837 $8.01
Livermore, CA Satbir Dhanda & Gurpreet Randhawa
99B-8110-24 16728
CL-07 Commercial 2222 San Ramon Valley Blvd.Harris Survivor's Trust $950,000 5/28/2015 0.7 30,492 CMU Mixed Use $1,357,143 $31.16
San Ramon, CA Phaas LLC
218-080-019 & -027 85888
CL-08 Commercial 281 Spring St.Zencha LLC $875,000 6/27/2014 0.39 17,001 CD Mixed Use $2,243,590 $51.47
Pleasanton, CA Cazadero Family LLC
094-0110-023-00 152874
CL-09 Commercial 2125 San Ramon Rd.See's Candies $1,255,000 5/15/2014 1.2 52,272 DDZD Commercial $1,045,833 $24.01
Dublin, CA Norton Investments V LLC
941-0305-034-02 120702
Commercial
Service
Central
Business
Parcel Size
Acres(s)/Sq. Ft.Zoning General Plan Price/Acre Price/SFComp. No.Type of Property Address/APN(s)Grantor/Grantee/Document Number Price COE
Industrial Sales
IL-01 Industrial Greenville Rd. @ Southfront Eden Landing Properties $1,650,000 Pending 4.39 191,128 PD-M-1 Industrial $375,854 $8.63
Livermore, CA Pending Sale
099B-5700-002-07 NA
IL-02 Industrial 3 Wyoming St.Der Maur FA&M Trust $600,000 7/26/2016 0.63 27,443 I Industrial $952,381 $21.86
Pleasanton, CA Tim Cotton & Kurt Nunnenkamp
946-4542-002-00 186987
IL-03 Industrial 625 W. Jack London Blvd.Oakridge Investments LLC $2,861,000 6/2/2016 7.3 317,849 I Industrial $391,918 $9.00
Livermore, CA Balch Enterprises, Inc.
904-0012-012-00 & - 013-00 138548
IL-03 Industrial Lawrence Drive Greenville Investors LLC $1,660,000 3/16/2016 6.01 261,796 I-3 Industrial $276,206 $6.34
Livermore, CA Livermore Live Properties LLC
099B-8110-064-00 & -062-00 62867
IL-04 Industrial 630 Pinnacle Place Mmr Property Investments LLC $240,000 3/14/2016 0.6 25,918 I-3 Industrial $400,000 $9.26
Livermore, CA Home Delivery Logistics, Inc.
009B-8126-006-00 60226
IL-04 Industrial 7925 National Dr.Dun-Rite Excavating, Inc.$1,350,000 12/15/2015 2.23 97,139 I-3 Industrial $605,381 $13.90
Livermore, CA Topcon Positioning Systems, Inc.
099B-5753-063-00 327729
IL-05 Industrial 704 Enterprise Ct.Mmr Property Investments LLC $250,000 11/2/2015 0.61 26,572 I-3 Industrial $409,836 $9.41
Livermore, CA Enterprise Court LLC
099B-5753-040-00 293796
IL-06 Industrial 6709 Southfront Rd.Mary Szlendak $1,729,000 10/13/2015 4.29 186,872 I-2 Industrial $403,030 $9.25
Livermore, CA Diane G . Klinke Trust
099B-5875-001-16 277049
IL-07 Industrial Contractors Place Equity Enterprises $900,000 9/29/2015 4.28 186,437 I Industrial $210,280 $4.83
Livermore, CA JR & A LLC
099-1349-023-00 85888
IL-08 Industrial 7600 Paterson Pass Rd.866 Inc.$2,911,000 8/15/2015 9.9 431,244 I-3 Industrial $294,040 $6.75
Livermore, CA Scannell Properties 245 LLC
099A-2942-001-00 & -003-00 235354
IL-09 Industrial 7600 Hawthorne Ave.Conco Co.$3,332,500 8/12/2015 12.75 555,390 I-3 Industrial $261,373 $6.00
Livermore, CA Majestic Livermore Properties LLC
099B-5753-013-00 3887730
Parcel Size
Acres(s)/Sq. Ft.Zoning General Plan Price/Acre Price/SFComp. No.Type of Property Address/APN(s)Grantor/Grantee/Document Number Price COE
Agriculture/Open Space Sales
OS-01 Low Intensity 3800 1st St.Taylor Morrison of CA LLC $627,000 8/12/2016 3.65 159,181 CS Roadway $171,781 $3.94
Livermore, CA Michael Salaber & Jennifer Elsa
099-0056-016-00 204223
OS-02 Low Intensity Greenville Rd.Pacific Lutheran University $2,700,000 11/25/2014 141.71 6,172,888 A Agriculture $19,053 $0.44
Livermore, CA Greenville Road Land Co.
099B-5600-004-24 283692
OS-03 Low Intensity 7101 Camino Tassajara Brentwood RE Investors LLC $516,000 10/10/2014 837.77 36,493,261 A-80 Agriculture $616 $0.01
Pleasanton, CA Robert Nielsen
205-050-007 175479
OS-03 Low Intensity 14 W. Grantline Rd.Martin & Jeanne Moghadam $1,250,000 9/19/2014 60.43 2,632,331 AG Agriculture $20,685 $0.47
Livermore, CA Bay Area Associates, Inc.
099B-7700-021-00 230871
OS-04 Low Intensity 9846 Reuss Rd.Wente Brothers $3,200,000 6/12/2014 113.52 4,944,931 AG Agriculture $28,189 $0.65
Livermore, CA Reuess Road Vineyards
009A-2003-19-00 140501
OS-04 Low Intensity W. Las Positas Blvd.Alameda County Surplus Property $1,403,000 1/13/2014 66.81 2,910,431 PUD-HDR/C PUD $21,000 $0.48
Pleasanton, CA Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC
946-4623-001, -007 & -008 7175
OS-05 Low Intensity 4760 Collier Canyon Rd.Badrolzaman Varasteh $450,000 7/18/2014 61 2,657,160 AG Agriculture $7,377 $0.17
Livermore, CA Gahrahmat Properties
905-7-10 80611
Parcel Size Acres(s)/Sq.
Ft.Zoning General Plan Price/Acre Price/SFComp. No.Type of Property Address/APN(s)Grantor/Grantee/Document Number Price COE
APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS
ERIC ROMAN, SR/WA, R/W‐AC
Industry experience since 1991
Current Responsibilities
Eric E. Roman joined Associated Right of Way Services, Inc., in 2005 with 15 years professional
appraisal and valuation experience, and currently serves as the Appraisal Manager, overseeing the daily
operation of the AR/WS appraisal staff and completing appraisal assignments for full and partial
acquisitions. The scope of Mr. Roman’s work includes appraisals on improved and unimproved
properties for public improvement projects and valuation of agricultural, residential, commercial, and
industrial properties for flood control, transportation improvement, and pipeline projects, as well as
assessment of impact fees and property disposition. Work is performed in conformance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, Caltrans standards, and state and federal guidelines.
Prior Experience
Prior to joining the AR/WS team, Mr. Roman worked for several prestigious companies. As a Senior
Real Estate Appraiser at CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Mr. Roman appraised complicated income producing
properties and proposed projects including condominium conversions, office, industrial, retail, multi‐
family housing, parking facilities, and unimproved land primarily for lending or acquisition purposes. As
Portfolio Associate with AMB Property Company, he provided portfolio management including
development, acquisition, and disposition strategy and support; quarterly reporting to joint venture
partners; calculation of fund and partnership internal rates of return; and internal valuations and third
party appraisal review. As Property Tax Services Manager with KPMG, LLP and Deliotte & Touche, LLP,
Mr. Roman performed property tax services including arbitration of assessed values and testimony
before the Assessment Appeal Boards and Boards of Equalization. As Senior Consultant, Valuation
Services with Arthur Andersen, LLP, Mr. Roman appraised income producing properties for property,
income, and estate tax purposes. He performed cost segregation assignments and feasibility analysis, as
well as traditional lender, merger, and acquisition appraisals. As a Real Estate Consultant with Wallace &
Steichen, Mr. Roman performed site selection, feasibility studies, fair market rent surveys, and appraisal
services; and as Staff Appraiser with Cushman & Wakefield, Mr. Roman appraised income producing
property and unimproved land primarily for lending and acquisition.
Education
University of California, Berkeley, BS, Sociology
Mr. Roman continues his education in matters of real property appraisal, acquisition, relocation,
engineering, and law through the Appraisal Institute, the International Right of Way Association, and
other professional organizations to broaden his scope of knowledge and provide higher levels of service.
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG025365
State of Texas Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. TX‐1337807‐G
Candidate for Designation, Appraisal Institute
SR/WA, Senior Member, International Right of Way Association
R/W‐AC, Appraisal Certified, International Right of Way Association
Region 1 (CA, AZ, NV & HI) 2012 Professional of the Year, International Right of Way Association
Past President, Chapter 2/International Director, International Right of Way Association
ERIC E. ROMAN, SR/WA, R/W‐AC
Related Course Work:
The Appraisal Institute
Appraisal Principals; Appraisal Procedures; Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice; Basic Income Capitalization; Advance Income Capitalization; Advanced Applications;
Advanced Applications and Case Studies; Advanced Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use;
General Report Writing; The Appraiser as an Expert Witness; California Eminent Domain
Seminar; Appraising the Tough Ones Seminar; Spring Litigation Seminar
International Right of Way Association (IRWA)
Ethics and the Right of Way Profession; Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions; 53rd, 57th, and 58th
Annual Education Conference; Principles of Real Estate Law; Principles of Real Estate
Negotiation; Principles of Real Estate Engineering; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Bargaining
Negotiations; Easement Valuation; United States Land Titles; Reviewing Appraisals in Eminent
Domain
College
Real Estate Principals; Microeconomics; Macroeconomics; Statistics
Other
USPAP Continuing Education
Institute for Professionals in Taxation (IPT)
Property Tax School (Texas A&M); Advanced Real Estate (University of Tennessee)
National Highway Institute (US Department of Transportation)
Real Estate Acquisition Under the Uniform Act
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************************
REVISING THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council adopted the Consolidated Impact Fee
Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), which superseded the Guidelines previously adopted for the Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Public Facilities Fe e (Resolution
No. 122-13); and
WHEREAS, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 123-13 to establish a single policy
for exemptions for impact fees; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2014, the City Council adopted the amendment to the Guidelines by
allowing a credit holder to extend expiring credits with a 5-year extension for an additional year
(Resolution No. 117-14); and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2016, the City Council adopted the amendment to the Guidelines by
allowing Fee Credits to exist in perpetuity and not convert to a right to reimbursement at the end of
credit period; one-time allowance for current Right to Reimbursement agreements to be re -converted
to Fee Credits; and City Manager’s authorization to approve the conversion of credits from one
parkland and improvement category to another parkland and improvement (Resolution No. 111 -15);
and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016, the City Council adopted the amendment to the
Guidelines due to change fee description to Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee f rom
Downtown Traffic Impact Fee (Resolution No. 147-16); and
WHEREAS, the City now wishes to amend the Guidelines so not to allow Fire Impact Fee
Credits to exist in perpetuity and allow current Fire Impact Fee Credits that exist in perpetuity to be
converted to right to reimbursement with the approval of the City Manager; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby amend subsections VI.D.2 and VI.G.b) and VI. I. 2. to read as follows (with additions in italics
and deletions in strikethrough):
VI.D.2 Developer can request that a credit exists in perpetuity, with the exception
of the Fire Facilities Fee. To exercise this option, Developer must make a written
request to the City Manager or designee, and the credit will not be eligible to convert to
a right to reimbursement.
VI.G.b) As an alternative, Developer can request that credits, other than credits
created under the Fire Facilities Fee , exist in perpetuity and not convert to a right to
reimbursement. To exercise this option, Developer must make a request, in writing, no
more than six months prior and no less than three (3) months prior to credit expiration,
or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe.
Developer must secure a written approval from the City Manager or designee for the
request. Credits cannot be re-converted to a right to reimbursement.
o Developers that have Fire Facilities Fee credits that would exist in perpetuity may
request that the credits be converted to a right to reimbursement with approval, in
writing, by the City Manager.
VI. I. 2. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement
Rights
In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set -aside is available, 50%
will be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid
off before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balance of the 50% will
go toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set -aside funds will be
allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the
reimbursement set-aside will be allocated to all remaining reimbursement rights on a
pro-rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the remaining un-
reimbursed portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set -aside funds
will not be carried over to another fiscal year. See Appendix A for illustrative example
7, which pertains to this section.
This guideline does not apply to any Fire Facilities Fee reimbursement that was
converted from a credit in perpetuity. Upon such conversion, the City Manager shall
have the authority, in writing, to establish the right to reimbursement priorities for rights
of reimbursement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin repeals Resolution No. 123 -13 because
all exemptions were previously incorporated into the Guidelines.
Amended Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2017, by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
2842954.2
City of Dublin
C onsolidated Impact Fee
Administrative$XJXVW
Photo Credit: "West Dublin Pleasanton 7-11-09" by Coastergeekperson04 at en.wikipedia.
Licensed underCC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
b
Document Description
Amendment Control
Project Name Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Update
Related Documents City of Dublin General Plan (Amended November - 2014), Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan (Amended - October 2014), City of Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan (Updated October – 2014)
Document Name Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines
File Path G:\TIF\Western Dublin\2015 Western Dublin (Downtown) TIF update\CC
Public Hearing
Date Document Approved September 6, 2016
Amendment
Number
Date
Description of Change
Author
1 9/15/17 Fire Facilities Fee Credit and reimbursement Lisa Hisatomi
Table of Contents
I. Introduction/Overview ..................................................................................................................... 1
II. Authority of City Manager to Interpret Situations Not Covered ..................................................... 1
III. Fee Administration .......................................................................................................................... 2
A. Responsible Departments ...................................................................................................... 2
B. Effective Fees ........................................................................................................................ 2
C. Basis for Calculating Fees for Projects not Covered in Fee Resolutions .............................. 2
IV. Payment Records ............................................................................................................................. 4
V. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines ............................................................................. 4
A. Refunds ................................................................................................................................. 4
B. Annual Review of Fee Collection ......................................................................................... 4
C. Funds and Accounting .......................................................................................................... 5
D. Exemptions ........................................................................................................................... 5
E. Administrative Fees .............................................................................................................. 6
VI. Developer Fee Credits...................................................................................................................... 7
A. General .................................................................................................................................. 7
B. Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement Required ................................................................. 7
C. Calculating the Fee Credits ................................................................................................... 8
D. Use of Fee Credits ................................................................................................................. 9
E. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds ....................... 10
F. Transferring of Credits ........................................................................................................ 10
G. Options At or Prior to Expiration of Credit Life ................................................................. 10
H. Reimbursement Rights (Excluding EDTIF Section II Residential BART Garage Fees) .... 11
I. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights ...................................................... 11
J. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers ................................. 12
K. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits for Transportation Impact Fees .................................. 13
L. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee-Section II Residential BART Garage .......................... 13
Appendix A: Illustrative Examples
Appendix B: Previous Fee Resolutions
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 1
CITY OF DUBLIN CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES
I. Introduction/Overview
These guidelines apply to the Western Dublin Transportation (formerly known as the Downtown
Traffic) Impact Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 210-
04 and as subsequently amended), the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees (adopted by the City
Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 1-95 and as subsequently amended), the Public
Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 32-96 and
as subsequently amended), the Fire Facilities Fees (adopted by the City Council of the City of
Dublin through Resolution 37-97 and as subsequently amended), the Noise Mitigation Fee
(adopted by the City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 33-96 and as subsequently
amended), and the Non-residential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee (adopted by the
City Council of the City of Dublin through Resolution 70-05 and as subsequently amended)
which fees are, unless otherwise provided, hereinafter referred to as the "Fee" or "Fees." Except
as otherwise provided herein, terms used in these guidelines shall be defined in the same manner
as such terms are defined in the Resolution.
The application of these guidelines will, at times, refer to various reference documents adopted by
the City of Dublin. These documents include the City's General Plan, Specific Plans, and the most
recent Impact Fee Studies. Such reference documents are subject to change and may affect the
application of these guidelines.
II. Authority of City Manager to Interpret Situations Not Covered
Should situations arise not covered by these guidelines, the City Manager will have the authority
to determine how the resolutions, ordinances, guidelines and agreements will be administered.
Such interpretations by the City Manager will be in writing, and the City Manager’s
determination will be final and not appealable.
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 2
III. Fee Administration
A. Responsible Departments
The Administrative Services Department serves as the lead department to gather and coordinate
the information necessary to calculate the Fee. The Community Development Department is
responsible for determining the intended land use. The Public Works Department is responsible
for determining the number of vehicle trips assigned to the project.
B. Effective Fees
The Fee will be collected at the filing of final map and/or at the issuance of building permit for
the development project, unless otherwise provided in the applicable Fee Resolution, or developer
enters into a fee deferral agreement with the City. This section shall be applicable whether the
fees are paid in cash or a credit is used.
C. Basis for Calculating Fees for Projects not Covered in Fee Resolutions
The Fees for projects will be calculated as provided for in the Fee Resolutions. However, in
certain circumstances, the applicable resolutions may not appropriately reflect or apply to a
particular project. Examples of this situation could include, but not be limited to mixed use
projects or projects that involve land uses that are not included in the Resolution. In those
situations, the guidelines presented in this section will be applied.
For non-residential development projects in which the land use is not included in the definitions
contained in the applicable Fee Resolution, the Community Development Director will determine
which of the defined categories is appropriate, maintaining as much consistency as possible with
the definition of such terms.
For mixed-use development projects in all fee programs other than the Western Dublin
Transportation Impact Fee, the Community Development Director will determine the projected
percentage of each of the uses at the time the Final Map, other appropriate entitlement, or
building permit is approved. The Fee will be calculated on a pro-rata basis for each different use.
If the project contains both residential and non-residential portions, the Fee will be based upon
the residential per dwelling unit fee schedule for the residential portion and the non-residential
per square foot schedule for the non-residential portion. (Note that the Western Dublin
Transportation Impact Fee directly addresses the effects of mixed-use development.)
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 3
If the use(s) are unknown at the time of obtaining a building permit and the building permit does
not include adequate interior details to determine the intended use, the use for the initial fee
calculation purposes will be determined by the Community Development Director. Any Fee
discrepancy as a result of a different final use of the property will be calculated and reconciled at
the time that a building permit is issued for interior tenant improvements. Such reconciliation
may result in an additional Fee or a partial refund of previously paid Fee(s). This fee calculation
shall be at the rate in effect at the issuance of building permit.
Quasi-public uses (churches, non-profit organizations, etc.) shall be subject to the Fees. For these
uses, the Community Development Director will determine which of the categories most
appropriately reflects the land use and allocate the project to this category. Affordable housing
projects developed by government agencies and/or non-profit entities will be subject to the same
Fees that are assessed on private residential development.
Where the Fee in question is calculated based on trips generated, the Fee Schedule of the
applicable Approving Resolution for the Fee will define appropriate trip rates to be used for the
calculation of the Fees. If an applicant disagrees with the Fee calculated based on trips generated
by the proposed project per respective Fee program, including but not limited to quasi-public
uses, applicant may make a written request to the Public Works Director, requesting that the City
undertake a specific traffic study for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of
the proposed development project. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with
the study.
If the Public Works Director determines that the land use of the proposed development project is
not appropriately reflected in the Fee Schedule to the Resolution or that the intensity of the
proposed land use is not consistent with the adopted land use categories in the Fee Schedule to
the Resolution, the Public Works Director will have the option of requiring a traffic analysis or
utilizing an existing relevant study for the purpose of determining the estimated trip generation of
the proposed development project. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with
the study.
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 4
IV. Payment Records
The Administrative Services Department will record the payment of the Fees. Records will be
maintained to comply with refunding requirements as prescribed by State Law. The
Administrative Services Department will obtain a mailing address from each payor, as well as the
applicable Assessor’s Parcel Number, and will note the payor as the entity or person whose name
appears as the applicant for the building permit. The Administrative Services Department will
maintain the records for a period of ten years from their collection, unless a legal mandate exists
for a longer retention.
V. Other Miscellaneous Administrative Guidelines
A. Refunds
Refunds of Fees associated with withdrawn applications or projects on which construction has not
commenced, will be done in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Dublin Municipal
Code Section 7.28.450.
If, pursuant to said procedures for paid building permits, a refund is no longer available, and if,
within 10 years of the original payment of the Fees, new building permits are issued for a project
on the subject property, the developer of the new project shall be required to pay only the
difference between the amount of the Fees that were originally paid, and the amount of the Fees
in effect at the time of issuance of building permits for the new project. This calculation of the
difference in Fee amounts shall be done on a Fee by Fee basis. Thus, if any one Fee is reduced or
eliminated between the time of the original payment and the issuance of building permits for the
new project, the original payment amount for that reduced or eliminated Fee shall not be included
in the calculation of the amount owed for the other Fees.
B. Annual Review of Fee Collection
The City has existing procedures for complying with State Law in regards to accounting for
developer Fees. The Administrative Services Department will maintain records to provide the
following items:
A brief description of the Fee;
An identification of the improvements and the percentage of cost of the improvements
which the Fee will be expended upon; and
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 5
For improvements which are funded and yet to be completed, an identification of an
expected date by which construction of the facilities will commence.
C. Funds and Accounting
The City will incorporate the following items into its accounting procedures, which are the
responsibility of the Administrative Services Department:
The City will maintain a separate fund for the collection and expenditure of Fees.
The City will allocate interest to Fees collected in the fund based upon month end cash
balances.
The City will identify, in accordance with State Law, the beginning and ending balance
of the funds held for the Fee as of fiscal year end.
The City will identify the amount of Fees collected and interest earned in each fiscal year
for Fees.
The City will provide a description and accounting of any inter-fund transfers made by
the Fee Fund.
The City will calculate reimbursements annually within 180 days of each fiscal year end.
The City will file an annual accounting of all development impact fees with the City
Council and for public inspection within 180 days of each fiscal year end.
D. Exemptions
1. Total Exemption. The following types of development will be exempt from the collection of
Fees:
a) Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential
unit (e.g., second dwelling unit) is added to a single-family unit, or another unit is added
to an existing multi-family building.
b) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing single-family residential structure that
has been destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to the extent that the
replacement or reconstruction includes the addition of a residential unit (e.g., second
dwelling unit).
c) Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing multi-family residential structure
without changing the use type as a residential structure that is not part of a mixed used
development and that has been destroyed or demolished. This exception shall not apply to
the extent that the replacement or reconstruction increases the number of residential units
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 6
on the property.
d) Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee only. Some of the retail uses within the Eastern Dublin
Transit Center and the Fairway Ranch High-Density Residential Development may be
considered ancillary to the adjoining residential uses and therefore may not generate
outside vehicle trips. The Public Works Director shall provide the final determination of
land uses that could be considered ancillary. If a land use is found to be not completely
ancillary, an appropriate fee per trip will be charged in accordance with the provisions of
these guidelines.
e) The City Council, in its sole discretion, may waive the applicability of the Fee to certain
development constructed or to be constructed by a public entity on land having an
appropriate General Plan land use designation upon findings of the City Council that such
a waiver is in the interest of the public health, safety, and/or welfare, for reasons specified
in the findings.
f) Any alteration or addition to a non-residential building or structure resulting in a net
increase of no more than 500 square feet.
2. Partial Exemption – Applicable only to Western Dublin and Eastern Dublin TIF
A partial exemption may be granted based on prior Fees paid as follows:
If after paying the Fees for a specific development project, the project is demolished and replaced
by a new type of development, an exemption may be given for up to the amount which was paid
by the prior development project. In the event that the replacement project would result in a lower
Fee, the new development shall not accrue any unused credit or reimbursement rights. Any
change in use outside of the establishment of the Fee program shall be obligated to pay the entire
Fee except to the extent that another exemption applies. Any Traffic Impact Fees will be
calculated using the procedures outlined in these Guidelines.
E. Administrative Fees
Developers will pay the City administrative fees, provided the fees are established in the City's
Master Fee Schedule, to cover the costs associated with:
The establishment of the credit/reimbursement agreement
Credit transfers
Annual credit/Right to Reimbursement maintenance and monitoring.
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 7
VI. Developer Fee Credits
This section applies only to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee, Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee, Non-residential Affordable Housing
Impact Fee and the definitions contained in the Resolutions establishing and amending said Fees
shall apply. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the "Fee" or "Fees" in this section shall
mean only the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee,
Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee, and Non-residential Affordable Housing Impact Fee.
A. General
This section establishes the authority for providing credits and/or reimbursement to developers
who construct and/or dedicate any of the improvements and facilities for which the Fees are
imposed. When such public improvements and facilities are constructed and/or dedicated by a
developer, the developer shall be given a credit when appropriate to be applied against the Fees
due for the development project. The amount of the credit shall be determined pursuant to these
guidelines. If the amount of the credit is greater than the Fees due for the development project,
the developer may, subject to the restrictions described herein, use the credit toward the Fees for
another development project or transfer the credit to another eligible developer in accordance
with these guidelines. If the developer cannot use or transfer the credit within ten years, then the
credit will convert to a reimbursement right unless the developer first extends the credits as
provided for in Section VI.G of these Guidelines.
B. Fee Credit/Reimbursement Agreement Required
The allotment of fee credits and/or provision for a reimbursement will only occur in accordance
with a written credit/reimbursement agreement between the City and the developer responsible
for the construction of the Fee facilities or dedication of land.
1. All fee credits will be granted by use of a standard agreement approved by the City
Attorney.
2. This credit/reimbursement agreement will be entered into at the time the improvements
are secured and/or the right-of-way is accepted for dedication. The terms of this
agreement may, at the City's discretion, be included in the agreement entered into with
the City to secure certain public improvements as contained on a Final Parcel Map or
Final Subdivision Map.
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 8
3. Any credits, which are unused within ten years following their creation, pursuant to
Section VI.G.a of these Guidelines, shall convert to a right to reimbursement, unless the
developer first extends the credits as provided for in Section VI.G .b of these Guidelines.
4. Neither a credit nor the right to reimbursement shall either be increased for inflation or
accrue interest. The park land right to reimbursement amount shall be based on land
value at the time of dedication.
5. Credits are transferable, with the written approval of the City Manager, provided that the
administrative fee is paid, as specified in these guidelines.
6. The developer will sign the fee credit/reimbursement agreement attesting that it obtained
a copy of these administrative guidelines and they were read, understood, and accepted.
7. With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and the Western Dublin
Transportation Impact Fee, credits earned by constructing improvements can only be
used to offset fees for that same category. The Fee for other categories will be paid by the
developer as specified in these guidelines. Fee credits will not be mixed between the fee
categories. For example, with respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, unused
credits from Section I (Eastern Dublin Traffic Improvements) cannot be used to offset the
Section II component of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee.
8. With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, no fee credits shall be established
for the "Section II Residential BART Garage" component of the Fee. Payments from
those monies shall be made in accordance with subsection VI.L below.
9. With respect to the Public Facilities Fee, the City Manager may approve the conversion
of credits from one park land category to another park land category based on the land
values conversion ratio, or may approve the conversation of credits from one park
improvement category to another park improvement category. Park land credits cannot
convert to park improvement credits nor can park improvement credits convert to park
land credits. Any such conversion shall require an amendment to the
credit/reimbursement agreement that documents the existing credits or a new
credit/reimbursement agreement, if the credits have not been documented. Requests for
conversion under this section must be made in writing and the decision to approve or
deny a request is made at the sole discretion of the City Manager. The City Manager shall
approve the conversion only if he or she finds that the conversion would not materially
change the Public Facilities Fee program's ability to deliver the acreage in each category
specified in the program. This provision does not apply to any other category in the
Public Facilities Fee program.
C. Calculating the Fee Credits
1. General
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 9
The fee credit/reimbursement agreement will identify the total credit for Fee
improvements/facilities constructed or land dedicated for a particular development
project. The contributed land or improvements must be the facilities described in the
applicable Fee Resolutions and/or any subsequent replacement resolutions. There must be
a minimum value of $50,000 in improvements and/or right of way dedicated before
credits will be allotted to a developer.
2. Determination of Value
The Public Works Director will determine the value of the contributed
improvements/facilities based upon improvement plans submitted by the developer and
approved by the City, which plans shall quantify the size of the Fee facilities to be
constructed or dedicated. It is recognized that, in some cases, the scope of construction or
dedication will not exactly match the Fee facilities shown in the exhibits to the Fee
Resolution.
The credits will be the lesser of the following: a) the estimated cost of the improvements
as noted in the Resolution and/or any subsequent replacement resolution; or b) the pro-
rated value of the improvement using the standard cost measurements in the Resolution
and/or any subsequent replacement resolution. The Fee credits cannot exceed the cost
estimates of the improvements in the most recent Fee study and resolution. In no case
shall the fee credits include facility financing costs. See Appendix A for illustrative
examples 1 through 6, which pertain to this section.
D. Use of Fee Credits
1. Credits expire when used or 10 years from the date of the credit/reimbursement
agreement, whichever occurs first.
2. Developer can request that a credit exists in perpetuity, with the exception of the Fire
Facilities Fee. To exercise this option, Developer must make a written request to the City
Manager or designee, and the credit will not be eligible to convert to a right to
reimbursement.
The value of the credits will be listed in the agreement and applied as credits to the Fees
as authorized by the developer. The City's Administrative Services Department will keep
record of credit utilization and balance.
3. Only the developer who builds or dedicates the Fee facilities will be entitled to the
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 10
original or initial credits, until such time as they may be transferred in accordance with
these guidelines.
E. Use of Fee Credits requires Completion of Facility or Performance Bonds
Fee credits cannot be used by the developer until the developer has either:
1. Dedicated the land or constructed improvements/facilities representing the credits to the
City; or
2. Provided the City with a performance bond and a labor and materials bond or other
adequate security to insure that the improvements will be constructed prior to the first
Certificate of Occupancy for any building that is part of the project. The performance
bond or other security shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the engineer's estimated
cost to construct the improvements and the labor and materials bond shall be written by a
surety licensed to conduct business in the State of California and approved by the City
Manager or designee. See Appendix A for illustrative example 7, which pertains to this
section.
F. Transferring of Credits
1. The original holder of credits can request a transfer of credits to a person owning an
interest in property that is subject to the same category of the Fee in question. Such
transactions shall be subject to an administrative fee, which shall cover the City's
administrative costs associated with the credit transfer. The administrative fee shall be
established in the City's Master Fee Schedule.
2. There is no limit on the number of times that credits can be transferred between
developments.
3. In certain circumstances, and as required in the interest of equity, the City Manager may,
at his or her sole discretion, authorize the transfer of credits to a person who does not own
an interest in property subject to the Fee.
G. Options At or Prior to Expiration of Credit Life
At or prior to expiration of the credit, the developer has the following options:
a) The expired unused fee credit shall automatically convert to a reimbursement right as
provided for under these guidelines, unless Developer submits a written request for
extension no more than six months prior and no less than three (3) months prior to the
credit expiration date or with City Manager's approval if the request passes the City's
required timeframe. The period for right to reimbursement extends ten (10) years from
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 11
the date of expiration.
b) As an alternative, Developer can request that credits, other than credits created under the
Fire Facilities Fee, exist in perpetuity and not convert to a right to reimbursement. To
exercise this option, Developer must make a request, in writing, no more than six months
prior and no less than three (3) months prior to credit expiration, or with City Manager's
approval if the request passes the City's required timeframe. Developer must secure a
written approval from the City Manager or designee for the request. Credits cannot be re-
converted to a right to reimbursement.
o Developers that have Fire Facilities Fee credits that would exist in perpetuity
may request that the credits be converted to a right to reimbursement with
approval, in writing, by the City Manager.
H. Reimbursement Rights (Excluding Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Section
II Residential BART Garage Fees)
Reimbursement rights are created from the conversion of Fee credits, which occurs 10 years after
the initial date of the credit/reimbursement agreement, or after credit extension. Right to
reimbursement life is 10 years. Reimbursement rights are subject to the following specific
guidelines:
1. Reimbursement will only be from funds that were collected in payment of the same Fee
as the one for which a developer is seeking reimbursement.
2. The City will determine the amount of funds available for reimbursement on an annual
basis based on Fee programs, such as the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee and Western
Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and the Public Facilities Fee programs.
I. Process for Reimbursement of Reimbursement Rights
1. Determination of Funds Available for Reimbursement
Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services Department
will make an accounting of all Fees collected for the fiscal year that just ended. The
Administrative Services Department will also determine, for each of the Fees, the amount
of Fee funds that are unspent and unplanned. The remaining funds (the reimbursement
set-aside) will be used to reimburse holders of reimbursement rights for facilities already
contributed, if any such reimbursement rights exist.
2. Allocating the Reimbursement Set-Aside to Outstanding Reimbursement Rights
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 12
In the event that the City designates that a reimbursement set-aside is available, 50% will
be used to pay the oldest reimbursement right outstanding. If the oldest right is paid off
before this portion of funds is entirely consumed, then the balance of the 50% will go
toward the next oldest right. This portion of reimbursement set-aside funds will be
allocated according to this method until it is exhausted. The other half of the
reimbursement set-aside will be allocated to all remaining reimbursement rights on a pro-
rata basis according to their amounts outstanding, including the remaining un-reimbursed
portion of the oldest agreement. Unused reimbursement set-aside funds will not be
carried over to another fiscal year. See Appendix A for illustrative example 7, which
pertains to this section.
This guideline does not apply to any Fire Facilities Fee reimbursement that was
converted from a credit in perpetuity. Upon such conversion, the City Manager shall
have the authority, in writing, to establish the right to reimbursement priorities for rights
of reimbursement.
J. Procedures for Construction of Designated Facilities by Developers
1. With respect to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee and the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee, the improvements requested to be constructed or dedicated must be
submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no later than 30 calendar
days prior to the approval of the Final/Parcel Map on the development project. Absent a
Map, a letter must be submitted for approval prior to the approval of the improvement
agreement. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or description of area to be
dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, as determined by the Public Works Director, for the
Public Works Director to make a determination regarding the approval. The developer
constructing or dedicating improvements in lieu of paying a portion of the Fee must post
a performance bond before the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the
construction of the improvements.
2. With respect to the Public Facilities Fee (PFF), developers may, with City approval, be
permitted to design and construct facilities included in the FF program. The design and
construction materials/methods must be in accordance with standard City specifications,
and City inspectors shall be responsible for construction inspection throughout the
duration of the construction period. The PFF Facilities to be constructed or dedicated by
the developer must be submitted for approval in writing to the Public Works Director no
later than 30 calendar days prior to the approval of the Final/Parcel Map or improvement
program on the development project. The submittal of the improvement plans and/or
description of area to be dedicated shall be in sufficient detail, including the layout of
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 13
timeline/milestones of the construction, as determined by the Public Works Director, for
the Public Works Director to make an informed determination regarding the approval.
The developer constructing or dedicating PFF Facilities in lieu of paying a portion of the
Fee must post a performance bond and a labor and materials bond before the issuance of
any grading and/or building permits for the construction of the PFF Facilities.
K. Guidelines for Issuing Trip Credits for Transportation Impact Fees
1. Trip credit shall be determined by the City based upon the adopted trip generation rates
as specified in the Fee program. See Appendix A for illustrative examples 8 through 11,
which pertain to this section.
2. Trip credits shall follow the land use and not the user. For example, assume User X
relocates from Space A to Space B, both of which are located within the Western Dublin
TIF area. User X shall not receive trip credit for vacating Space A. User X shall be
charged the appropriate TIF amount for moving into Space B, subject to receiving trip
credit as specified below. Similarly, the appropriate TIF amount shall be charged to the
next user of Space A, subject to the appropriate trip credit.
3. Trip credit associated with unoccupied space shall be issued if, and only if, the space has
been vacant for three (3) calendar years or less prior to the date when a use permit is
issued to the new user.
4. TIF calculations/trip credit for uses, other than Urgent Care Medical Office, located
within a general office building that houses multiple tenants (such as professional
services, insurance companies, investment brokers, bank or savings and loan institutions,
medical offices, restaurant or cafeteria, retail facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a
uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as specified in the Fee
Program. For Urgent Care Medical Office use within a general office building, the trip
generation rate for Clinic, as specified in the Fee program, shall be used to calculate the
TIF and the trip credit.
5. Trip credit for uses located within a shopping center containing retail stores, as well as
non-merchandising facilities (such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post
offices, banks, health clubs, recreational facilities, etc.) shall be based upon a uniform trip
generation rate for the appropriate type of Shopping Center as specified in the Fee
program.
L. Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee-Section II Residential BART Garage
1. Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) for $6 million of
BART Garage Costs (Section II Residential BART Garage).
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 14
With respect to the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee, payment of Section II Residential
BART Garage Fees, payment shall be made to the Alameda County Surplus Property
Authority (ACSPA), which is responsible for the parking garage construction and
dedication of the improvement to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District for public
use. Except for interest earned on Section II Residential BART Garage fees prior to
distribution, the maximum amount to be paid to ACSPA shall not exceed $6,000,000 (six
million dollars). Payment to Alameda County Surplus Property Authority is subject to the
following specific guidelines:
a) The maximum to be disbursed from fees collected shall be six million dollars
($6,000,000), which amount shall not be increased for any reason including inflation. In
addition, any accrued interest pending disbursement shall be disbursed to ACSPA.
b) Disbursement will be only from the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Section II
Residential BART Garage fee, and will not come from any other source including the
City's General Fund.
c) The amount disbursed will depend on the payment of fees by development subject to the
fee. There is no guarantee that ACSPA will receive a total of $6,000,000.
d) The City will determine and report on an annual basis to ACSPA, the amount of funds
collected from the Section II Residential BART Garage fee and the amount available for
disbursement, including interest accrued prior to disbursement, if any.
e) The procedure for distributing the disbursements to ACSPA is described below.
2. Process for Payment to ACSPA -Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds
a) Initial Distribution of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds
i. Once the BART Garage has been accepted by BART and made available for
public use, the ACSPA shall provide to the City a written certification of the
completion of the BART Garage.
ii. Within 45 days of receipt of the certification described above, City shall calculate
the balance of funds available in Section II Residential BART Garage fee, as of
the first day of the month preceding the date of the notice. City shall also
calculate and account for accrued interest based on the quarterly balance of
Section II BART Garage Fees and the earning rate applied to pooled funds
managed by the City. City shall remit to ACSPA the funds as calculated along
with a report showing the maximum remaining fees that may be paid to ACSPA.
iii. Thereafter, funds shall be distributed on an annual basis as described below.
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 15
b) Annual Determination of Section II Residential BART Garage Fee Funds Available for
Payment
i. Within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year, the Administrative Services
Department will make an accounting of all Section II Residential BART Garage
fees collected, and not previously disbursed, for the fiscal year that just ended.
This shall include accrued interest.
ii. The City shall distribute to ACSPA, Section II Residential BART Garage fees
available, to the extent that the total distribution including previous payments,
excluding any amounts paid as interest, does not exceed the maximum amount
described above.
iii. The Administrative Services Department shall annually report to the ACSPA the
current balance remaining in Section II Residential BART Garage fees that may
be paid.
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 16
Appendix A: Illustrative Examples
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 17
Illustrative Example 1 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or Western Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee): Assume that a developer dedicates land for the partial widening of a major street to
offset the Fees due from a development project. To qualify for a credit, this roadway widening
project must be included in the Western Transportation Impact Fee program. The land dedication
to be applied for a Fee credit shall not include improvements immediately adjacent to the
development project, as these improvements are entirely the responsibility of the developer and
are not to be funded by the Fee. The Resolution used a standard cost measurement on the current
value per square foot for right-of-way dedication in calculating the TIF. The Fee credits due to
the developer can be calculated by determining the square footage of the land to be dedicated
multiplied by the proper square foot cost measurement after automatic annual adjustments based
on the change in land acquisition costs.
Illustrative Example 2 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): A Developer constructing
multi-family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (TIF improvement) valued at
$200,000. Assume that the Fee at the time totals $2,497 per dwelling unit. The credit of $200,000
will cover approximately 80.10 dwelling units. When the building permit is issued for the 81st
dwelling unit, the developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Fee.
Illustrative Example 3 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): A developer constructing single
family homes contributes traffic signal improvements (Section I improvement) valued at
$200,000. Assume that the Traffic Impact Fee at the time totals $9,062 per home, which is
comprised of the Section I portion of $7,207 and the Section II portion of $1,855. The credit of
$200,000 can only be used against the developer's Section I Fee of $7,207 per home, which will
cover approximately 27.75 homes. When the building permit is issued for the 28th home, the
developer will have used up the credit and will have to begin paying the Section I Fee. The
Section II portion of the Fee must be paid at the issuance of each building permit for all homes
included in the development, as the Section I credit cannot be used to offset these portions of the
Fee.
Illustrative Example 4 (Public Facilities Fee): Assume that a developer improves 10 acres of
land for a planned 20 acre community park to offset the Fees due for the Community Parks
Improvement fee component. The last adopted fee study used a standard cost estimate of
$420,000 per acre for calculating the cost of improved community parkland. The fee credit due to
the developer will be calculated using this cost estimate (10 acres, $420,000 per acre =
$4,200,000).
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 18
Illustrative Example 5 (Public Facilities Fee): A developer constructing single family homes in
Dublin contributes neighborhood park improvements valued at $200,000. The Neighborhood
Parks Improvements portion of the Fee for a single family home is $2,280 of the total Fee of
$32,643. The developer must pay a Fee of $30,363 for each single-family home (total Fee of
$32,643 less credit of $2,280) until the $200,000 credit is used up. This credit will cover the
Neighborhood Parks, Improvements component of the Fee for the first 87 single-family homes
constructed ($200,000/$2,280 = 87.72). When the developer applies for the building permit for
the 88th home, he or she will begin paying this component of the Fee with the balance of the
Public Facilities Fee due for the project.
Illustrative Example 6 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee or Western Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee): A developer is constructing certain street improvements, which will be dedicated to
the City to offset a portion of the Fee. The improvements are a project in Fee Program. The
developer supplies the City with a right-of-way conveyance, a performance bond and a labor and
materials bond for the completion of the street improvements. Fee credits can be used in advance
of completing the improvements, since the City is assured that the land will be dedicated and the
improvements will be completed.
Illustrative Example 7 (Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee): During one fiscal year, the City
collects $88,000 in Fees for Eastern Dublin TIF improvements. The total outstanding
reimbursements owed for the Eastern Dublin TIF are $100,000 to the following developers:
Developer A (the oldest agreement): $50,000
Developer B: $20,000
Developer C: $30,000
For the upcoming fiscal year, the City retains $44,000 for improvements not built by developers
and allocates $44,000 as the reimbursement set-aside to reduce current reimbursement
obligations. $22,000 (50% of the $44,000) of the reimbursement set-aside is used to pay
Developer A, who holds the oldest agreement. Developer A now has $28,000 of outstanding
reimbursements (beginning balance of $50,000 less the $22,000 payment). The other half of the
reimbursement set-aside ($22,000) is allocated proportionally to all three parties who currently
hold reimbursement rights as follows:
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 19
Holder of
Reimbursement
Current Value of
Reimbursement
Owed
Percent of Total
Reimbursements
Outstanding
Amt. of $22,000
Reimbursement
Distributed
Reimbursement
Balance
Remaining
Developer A $28,00035.90%$7,898.00 $20,102.00
Developer B $20,00025.64%$5,640.80 $14,359.20
Developer C $30,00038.46%$8,461.20 $21,538.80
TOTAL $78,000$22,000.00 $56,000.00
Illustrative Example 8 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X moves his/her fast
food restaurant business into an individual (standalone) building located within the Western
Dublin TIF area. Previous use of the building consisted of a sit-down restaurant, which was
vacated approximately two years prior to User X obtaining his/her use permit. Would User X be
entitled to trip credit?
Answer: Yes, because the previous use was vacated only two years before he/she would be
entitled to trip credit for the previous sit-down restaurant use which generates fewer trips than a
fast food restaurant. User X would pay TIF based on the net trips estimated for his/her project.
Illustrative Example 9 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X (insurance company
office) and User Y (dental office) occupy office space in two separate general office buildings
(building A and building B, respectively). Both buildings are located within the Western Dublin
TIF area. The two users have decided to switch office spaces (e.g., User X would relocate to the
space in building B and User Y would relocate to the space in building A). Would either user be
required to pay TIF?
Answer: No, because as each user moves into the other space, he/she would receive full trip credit
for the previous use, based on the uniform trip generation rate for Standard Commercial Office as
specified in the Fee program. Note: Although User Y operates a dental office, which generates
more trips than an insurance company office (User X), the same trip generation rate (i.e.,
Standard Commercial Office) is used in both cases to calculate the TIF, as both uses are proposed
to take place within a general office building.
Illustrative Example 10 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X proposes to
change the use of his/her individual (standalone) space within the Western Dublin TIF area from
Health Club to Bowling Center/Video Arcade. How would the TIF be determined?
Answer: The TIF would be determined based on the net change in trips estimated for the
proposed project. For example, User X would be charged TIF based on the proposed Bowling
City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines – August 2017 Page 20
Center/Video Arcade use, but would receive trip credit for the discontinued Health Club use.
Illustrative Example 11 (Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee): User X proposes to
establish an Urgent Care Medical Office within a general office building by replacing existing
retail/restaurant uses located on the first floor of the building. How would the trip credit be
determined?
Answer: The trip credit would be determined based on the trip generation rate for Standard
Commercial Office. Note: The TIF would be based upon the increase in trips due to the proposed
project (e.g., the difference between Clinic trips and Standard Commercial Office trips).
ORDINANCE NO. XX-17
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
*********
AMENDING CHAPTER 9.28 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES
WHEREAS, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City of Dublin’s (“City”)
General Plan, the City’s various Specific Plans, including but not limited to the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, etc., and the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in
the City, certain public facilities must be constructed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a public facilities fee is needed in
order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the
construction and acquisition costs of these improvements; and
WHEREAS, a public facilities fee (“fee”) has been established to pay for said municipally
owned public facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1. Section 9.28.040 of the Dublin Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows (with additions in italics and deletions in strikethrough):
It is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, safety and welfare
require that five (5) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within the
city be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The amount of land to be dedicated, or
fees to be paid, shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreation
facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. The amount of land to be dedicated shall
be the amount calculated from the following formula:
LAND = A x B
A. “A” means the park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, based on the type of
dwelling units of the proposed subdivision and the park area per one thousand (1,000)
people of the city.
1. The park area of the city is determined to be five (5.0) acres p er one thousand
(1,000) people, or five-one-thousandths (0.005) acre per person, which is further
broken down to three (3.0) acres per one thousand (1,000) people for active
community parks, three-tenths (0.3) acre per one thousand (1,000) people for
natural community parks, and one and seven-tenths (1.7) acres per one
thousand (1,000) people for neighborhood parks.
2. The park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, A, is established as
follows:
a. Each dwelling unit is assigned two and seven-tenths (2.7) people.
Therefore:
A = 2.7 x .0030 = .0081 acres per unit (for active community parks)
A = 2.7 x .0008 acres per unit (for natural community parks)
A = 2.7 x .0017 = .0046 acres per unit (for neighborhood parks)
A (total) = .0135 acres per unit
2. The park and recreation area required per dwelling unit, A, is established as
follows:
a. Each Single-Family dwelling unit is assigned three and eight-
hundredths (3.08) people.
b. Each Other Multi Family dwelling unit is assigned one and eighty-eight
hundredths (1.88) people.
c. Each Senior Housing dwelling unit is assigned one and twelve
hundredths (1.12) people.
B. “B” means the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision. For the purpose of
this section, the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision shall be
determined as follows: For single-family and townhome subdivisions, In areas zoned for
one (1) dwelling unit per lot or parcel, the number of dwelling units shall equal the
number of lots or parcels created for residential use as indicated on the final map or
parcel map. When the subdivision is for other multi-family or senior housing, is located in
an area zoned for multiple dwelling units per parcel, the number of dwelling units shall
equal the maximum number of residential units allowed within the proposed subdivision
dwelling units allowed under that zone. For residential condominium projects, the
number of dwelling units shall equal the number of condominium units indicated on the
final map or parcel map. For planned development projects, the number of dwelling units
shall equal the number of dwelling units indicated on the approved planned development
plan.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance,
is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not
affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other
person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Dublin hereby declares that it would
have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase
hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions,
paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced on
October 15, 2017.
Section 4. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to
be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
2844069.1
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * *
REVISING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal Code
Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Public
Facilities Fee (the “Fee”) to pay for municipally owned public facilities within the jurisdictional
limits of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has adopted a General Plan (“GP”) and Specific Plans
(“SPs”), including but not limited to, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, the Dublin Crossing
Specific Plan, the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the GP outlines future land uses within the City’s sphere of influence
including new residential, commercial, office, and industrial developments; and
WHEREAS, the SPs provide more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs
within the GP areas; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update was adopted by the City
Council on May 19, 2015, by Resolution No. 72-15; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level of environmental review for the
2015 update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and on May 19, 2015, the City Council
by adoption of Resolution 71-15, adopted an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted several individual park master plans including
but not limited to the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan, Fallon Sports Park Master Plan, Dublin
Historic Park Master Plan, and the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan (“Park Master Plans”);
and
WHEREAS, the City approved a Library Planning Task Force Report, dated April 1993,
and a subsequent Library Planning Task Force Report dated September 1998 (“Library
Reports”); and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Library with all improvements being made to the 37,000 square
foot building falls within the Alameda County Library Master Space Plan (dated January 2017)
standard square foot per capita range of 0.45 to 0.55; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Civic Center Programming document dated
November 1986, and subsequent Civic Center Programming documents dated from 2007 and
September 2010 (“Civic Center Reports”); and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a Dublin Senior Center Feasibility Study (“Senior
Center Study”), dated February 4, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior
Center Study, and SPs, describe the municipal public facilities necessary for implementation of
the GP and SPs, including completion of City office space, construction of and improvements to
the library, and the acquisition and construction of parks and community facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Public Facilities Fee Program assumes that certain municipal public
facilities will be constructed and that new development fund its fair share of the costs needed for
the acquisition and/or construction of these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a “Mitigation Monitoring Program: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment” by Resolution No. 53-93 which includes mitigation
measures to assure that development within Eastern Dublin pays it proportionate share of
municipal public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts caused by development within Eastern
Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, Senior
Center Study, GP, and SPs describe the impacts of contemplated future development on
existing public facilities within the City of Dublin, and contain an analysis of the need for new
municipal public facilities required by future development within the Dublin community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-96 on March 26, 1996
establishing a “Public Facilities Fee” for development within the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 32-96 relies upon and incorporates a report prepared for the
City of Dublin by Recht, Hausrath & Associates, in a document dated March 1996 and entitled
“City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Justification Study;” and
WHEREAS, in 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 60-99 revising the “Public
Facilities Fee” and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Hausrath Economics Group,
dated February 1999 and entitled “Public Facilities Fee 1998 Update;” and
WHEREAS, in 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 214-02 revising the
“Public Facilities Fee” and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by MuniFinancial, dated
October 14, 2002 and entitled “City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update;” and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 134-15 revising the
“Public Facilities Fee” and incorporated and relied on a report prepared by Willdan Financial
Services, dated July 7, 2015 and entitled “City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update;”
and
WHEREAS, Section 9 of Resolution No. 134-15 provides that the City will periodically
review the “Public Facilities Fee” and make revisions as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. which in
September 2016 completed an appraisal of land values for parkland acquisition in the area; and
WHEREAS, the City recently retained Willdan Financial Services to assist the City in
reviewing and updating the Fee; and
WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services prepared a report dated July 19, 2017 and
entitled “City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Study Update” (hereafter “2017 Study Update”),
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 134-15, 214-02, 60-99 and 32-96 set forth the relationship
between future development in the City of Dublin, the needed public facilities and
improvements, and the estimated cost of those public facilities and improvements; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Study Update relies on the City of Dublin’s previous studies and
demonstrates the appropriateness of modifying the Fee in certain respects, primarily (1) to
update persons per dwelling unit based on dwelling types (Single family and townhomes; other
multi-family; senior housing); (2) to increase improvement costs for Neighborhood Parks to
reflect the City’s recent costs to improve parks; (3) to utilize the updated per capita target of .45
to .55 square feet per capita in the Alameda County Library Master Space Plan, adopted
January 2017, placing the City’s Library facility at .50 square feet per capita at buildout; (4) to
revise the Civic Center planned improvements to reflect the relocation of the police wing
improvements from the Civic Center to the Public Safety Complex; (5) to adjust the Community
Building planned improvements to reflect the planned improvement of a Cultural Arts Facility in
the current Police Services space to be vacated as a result of Dublin Police Service’s relocation
to the Public Safety Complex; and (6) to reduce the build-out employment estimate to align with
the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040 projections.; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Study Update was made available for public inspection and review
for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Fee is to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate
development. The Fee is intended to provide a funding source from new
development for capital improvements to serve that development. Such capital
improvements which are specifically described in the 2017 Study Update, include the
following: Public Safety Complex improvements for Police Services; build-out of the
Library; acquisition and construction of neighborhood and community parks;
acquisition, construction or build out of community buildings (including cultural
centers, community and recreational centers, and aquatic facilities). The public
facilities described in the study are hereinafter referred to as the "Facilities."
B. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities.
C. After considering the 2017 Study Update, the testimony received at this noticed
public hearing, the Staff Report, the GP, the SPs, the Park Master Plans, the Library
Reports, the Civic Center Reports, and the Senior Center Study, and all
correspondence received (hereafter "Record") the City Council approves and adopts
the 2017 Study Update, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that the
future development in the City of Dublin will generate the need for the Facilities, are
consistent with the Record.
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area is within the scope of its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
Addenda. The Facilities were all identified in the EIR as necessary to accommodate
development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the
Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program level in the EIR. Since the
certification of the EIR, there have been no substantial changes in the projections of
future development as identified in the EIR, no substantial changes in the
surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial importance
so as to require important revisions in the EIR's analysis of impacts, mitigation
measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review
under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are approved.
It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities at
this stage, as they will be implemented through build-out of the community and
specific details as to their timing, construction, and often precise location are not all
presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin is to
obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing
service areas. The City currently provides neighborhood and community park
services, community and recreation facilities services, and civic center services. The
City and the Alameda County Library system currently provide library services.
F. The Fee will be used to maintain current service levels; and that any existing
deficiency costs are not included in the Fee. As such, the Fee as it relates to
development within the City is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Public
Resources Code§ 21080(b)(8)(D)).
G. In adopting the Fee, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, section
7 of the California Constitution.
H. The Record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities
and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee
is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin – both residential
and nonresidential – will generate persons who live, work and/or shop in
Dublin and who generate or contribute to the need for the Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use (to pay for the
construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee
is charged in that all development within the City of Dublin – both residential
and nonresidential – generates or contributes to the need for the Facilities.
Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of
facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with
new development; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and
the cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the
City of Dublin in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents
or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total amount it will
cost to construct the Facilities, and the percentage by which development
within the City of Dublin contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the 2017 Study Update are reasonable
cost estimates for constructing the Facilities, and the fees expected to be
generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of
constructing the Facilities; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair
and reasonable relationship to, and is roughly proportional to, each
development’s burden on, and benefit from, the Facilities to be funded by the
Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or
employees each particular development will generate.
I. The 2017 Study Update is a detailed analysis of how public services will be affected
by development in the City of Dublin, the existing deficiencies, if any, and the public
facilities required to accommodate that development and any deficiencies.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows:
1. Definitions.
A. “Commercial” shall mean all commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel
development.
B. “Development” shall mean the construction, alteration or addition of any building
or structure within the City of Dublin.
C. “Facilities” shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in the
Study, the 1998 Study Update, the 2002 Study Update, the 2015 Study Update,
and the 2017 Study Update and as described in the Park Master Plans, the
Library Reports, the Civic Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, GP, SPs,
EIR and Addenda. “Facilities” shall also include comparable alternative facilities
should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate
construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later
determines: (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development
within the City of Dublin and the need for the alternative facilities; (2) that the
alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the 2017 Study Update;
and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new
development’s fair and proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
D. “Industrial” shall mean all manufacturing and warehouse development.
E. “Office” shall mean all general, professional, and medical office development.
2. Administrative Guidelines.
The City Council adopted by Resolution 147-16 on September 6, 2016, the Dublin
Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines, (the “Administrative Guidelines”) to
provide procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and other
administrative aspects of the Fee. Such guidelines shall include procedures for construction
of designated Facilities by developers. The Administrative Guidelines are incorporated
herein by this reference, as they may be amended from time to time.
3. Public Facilities Fee Imposed.
The Fee shall be charged and paid for each residential unit and non-residential building or
structure. The fee shall also be charged and paid for non-residential development for any
addition to an existing building or structure if the addition exceeds 500 square feet. Fees
shall be paid at such time as set forth in the Administrative Guidelines.
4. Reimbursement or Credit.
The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by use of the calculations
set forth in the Administrative Guidelines.
5. Amount of Fee.
The amount of the Fee shall be as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein. Each component of the Fee shall be considered to be a separate fee.
6. Exemptions From Fee.
The Fee shall not be imposed on any development qualifying for an exemption as set forth
in the Administrative Guidelines.
7. Use of Fee Revenues.
A. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Capital Project
Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund shall be
used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on each
account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following purposes:
1. To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisition and
construction of the Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant
studies related thereto;
2. To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds
from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the
City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to
be used for the Facilities;
3. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Facilities
which are oversized with supplement size, length, or capacity; and
4. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program.
B. Fees in the Capital Project Fund accounts shall be expended only for the
Facilities and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
8. Standards.
The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the standards of the
City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the Park Master Plans, the Library
Reports, the Civic Center Reports, the Senior Center Study, the GP, SPs, EIR, and
Addenda.
9. Periodic Review.
A. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balance of
fees in each account.
B. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall also review,
as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate
location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be
financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with
appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying
the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating
a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is
charged.
10. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on
the Record. The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine
whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City
Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the
impacts of development within the City of Dublin. The City Council may revise the Fee to
incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the GP,
SPs, Park Master Plans, Library Reports, Civic Center Reports, and Senior Center Study, as
well as increases due to changes in construction costs and land values. The City will
evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years.
11. Automatic Adjustment in Fee.
The purpose of this section is to provide for an automatic annual adjustment to the Fee in
years when the City Council does not revise the Fee pursuant to Section 8 above. The City
Manager shall adjust the Fee automatically, effective July 1, 2018 and each July 1
thereafter, as follows:
A. The costs of construction of the Facilities (as shown on Table 3.3 for Public
Safety Complex improvements; Table 4.3 for library facilities; Table 5.3 for parks;
Table 6.3 for community/recreation facilities; Table 7.3 for aquatic facilities in the
2017 Study Update shall be increased/decreased by the annual percentage
increase/decrease in the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index
(20-city average) for the month of April over the same Construction Cost Index
for the month of April of the prior year. The City Manager may round the Fee
adjustment to whole dollars.
B. The Land Cost per acre for the Facilities as shown on Table 5.3 Neighborhood
and Community Parks in the 2017 Study Update shall be increased/decreased
annually by the percentage increase/decrease between the land cost per acre in
the most recent land appraisal (prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting
the Fee) over the land cost per acre in the immediately preceding appraisal
(prepared for the City for purposes of adjusting the Fee and using the same
methodology), calculated as an annual increase/decrease. For example, in 2013,
the cost per square foot of neighborhood parkland was $50.00/square food, and
in 2016 it was $53.00/square foot, which results in an annual compounded
growth increase of 2% resulting in a yearly increase in land valuation of 2%. The
City will continue to use the same formula to adjust the Fees on July 1 annually.
The City Manager may round the Fee adjustment to whole dollars.
12. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. In compliance with Government Code
section 66017, the Fee shall be effective on October 15, 2017.
13. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any
individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjusted to be invalid
and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully
effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been
judged to be invalid.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
2841943.2
CITY OF DUBLIN
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE STUDY UPDATE
FINAL
JULY 19, 2017
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Lancaster, CA
Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN
Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Orlando, FL
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ
Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909) 587-3510 Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
www.willdan.com
This page intentionally left blank.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3
Background and Study Objectives 3
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 3
Other Funding Needed 4
Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances 4
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 6
Public Facilities Financing in California 6
Study Objectives 6
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Program 7
Fee Program Maintenance 7
Study Methodology 7
Types of Facility Standards 8
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8
Administrative Costs 9
Organization of the report 9
2. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST ............................................................. 11
Land Use Types 11
Existing and Future Development 12
Occupant Densities 12
3. CIVIC CENTER FACILITIES ............................................................... 14
Service Population 14
Facility Inventories and Standards 15
Existing Inventory 15
Planned Facilities 15
Cost Allocation 16
Fee Schedule 16
Projected Fee Revenue 17
4. LIBRARY FACILITIES ....................................................................... 18
Service Population 18
Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards 18
Planned Facilities 19
Facility Standards 19
Cost Allocation 20
Fee Schedule 21
5. PARK FACILITIES ............................................................................ 22
Service Population 22
Facility Inventories and Standards 23
Existing Inventory 23
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
ii
Parkland Unit Costs 25
Improved Parkland Equivalent 25
Existing Park Facility Standards 26
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 26
Parks Cost per Capita 28
Fee Schedule 28
6. COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES ............................................... 31
Service Population 31
Facility Inventories & Standards 32
Planned Facilities 32
Cost per Capita Standard 33
Fee Schedule 33
Projected Fee Revenue 34
7. AQUATIC FACILITIES ....................................................................... 35
Service Population 35
Facility Inventories & Standards 36
Cost per Capita Standard 36
Fee Schedule 37
Projected Fee Revenue 37
8. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 39
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 39
Inflation Adjustment 39
Reporting Requirements 39
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 39
9. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ...................................................... 40
Purpose of Fee 40
Use of Fee Revenues 40
Benefit Relationship 40
Burden Relationship 40
Proportionality 41
3
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of public facilities fees needed to support future development
in the City of Dublin through build out. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future
development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that
development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The
public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories
listed below:
Civic Center Facilities Park Facilities
Library Facilities Community Recreation Facilities
Aquatic Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new
development pays the capital costs associated with development. Although development also
imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new
development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that
will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates
increases in service demands.
The City imposes public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act),
contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the
necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules
contained herein.
All development impact fee-funded capital projects should be programmed through the City’s five-
year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee
revenue to public facilities projects that will accomm odate future development. By programming
fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship
between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the proposed development impact fee that would meet the City’s identified
needs and would comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
4
Table E.1: Proposed Impact Fee Summary by Fee Category
Land Use
Civic
Center
Facilities
Library
Facilities Parks
Community
Recreation
Facilities
Aquatic
Facilities Total
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single-Family & Townhome 1,490$ 268$ 19,314$ 3,736$ 336$ 25,144$
Other Multi-Family 910 164 11,790 2,281 205 15,350
Senior Housing 541 97 7,022 1,358 122 9,140
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 348$ 52$ 2,259$ 141$ 12$ 2,812$
Office 468 70 3,035 190 16 3,779
Industrial 174 26 1,124 71 6 1,401
Senior Service Facility 142 21 921 58 5 1,147
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.6, 5.8, 6.5 and 7.4.
Other Funding Needed
Impact fees can only fund the share of public facilities attributable to new development in Dublin.
They cannot be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by
development outside of the City.
Existing Impact Fee Fund Balances
This analysis incorporates the existing impact fee fund balances, by fee category, into the fee
calculations. For categories calculated using the planned facilities standard, the fund balance is
subtracted from the total cost of planned facilities allocated to new development prior to
calculating the cost per capita. Those costs are added to the cost of planned facilities and
included in the fee analysis. Table E.2 summarizes the existing impact fee fund balances.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
5
Table E.2: Impact Fee Fund Balances
Category:
Fund
Balances as
of 06/30/16
Community Park Land 8,890,023$
Neighborhood Park Land 8,123,033
Community Park Improvements 6,587,149
Neighborhood Park Improvements 4,348,102
Community Buildings (8,151,690)
Library (378,888)
Civic Center 2,725,302
Aquatic Center (4,558,820)
Quimby Act Park In-Lieu Fees (1,158,805)
Community Nature Park Land 65,768
Community Nature Park Improvements 450,207
Total 16,941,382$
Source: City Of Dublin.
6
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities t o accommodate new
development in the City of Dublin. This chapter provides background for the study and explains
the study approach under the following sections:
Public Facilities Financing in California;
Study Objectives;
City of Dublin Impact Fee Program;
Fee Program Maintenance;
Study Methodology; and
Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses; and
Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “development
pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing
ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished
primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees.
Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate
when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact
fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all
development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the
legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with development. The City imposes public facilities fees under
authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code
Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the factual and analytical support for the City Council
to make the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee
schedules presented in this report.
Dublin is forecast to experience continued development through build out. This development will
create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given
the revenue challenges described above, Dublin has decided to use a development impact fee
program to ensure that new development funds the share of facili ty costs associated with
development. This report makes use of the most current available development forecasts and
facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately
represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
7
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Program
Dublin currently charges a variety of impact fees to fund the construction and expansion of public
facilities to serve new development. The Dublin Public Facilities Fee (PFF) has been in place
since 1996. The PFF funds civic center, parks, library, community recreation facilities, and
aquatics facilities. A comprehensive update of the fee was last carried out in 1998 and adopted in
1999. In 2002, MuniFinancial (now Willdan Financial Services) updated the fee for changes in
facility costs. In 2015, Willdan updated the fee program again for changes in facility plans and
development forecasts. Since that time, the fees have been updated for inflation on a regular
basis. Fee programs must be regularly adjusted for inflation, as not doing so can result in impact
fees that do not generate sufficient revenues to fully fund facilities to serve new development
through the planning horizon.
This report provides a comprehensive update of the fees based on the City’s current facility plans,
current facility cost estimates, and current population and employment projections for the City of
Dublin.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue
collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting
inadequate revenue, the City must update inventories of existing facilities and the costs for
planned facilities, and then recalculate the fees to reflect the higher costs. The use of established
indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, building s, and equipment), such as the
Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of
recommended indices, see Chapter 8.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure
that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to
conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study)
when significant new data on development forecasts and/or facility plans become available. In
this case, it has been two years since the City last comprehensively updated its fee program. For
further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 8.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate
development. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future development: Identify a base year for
existing development and a development forecast that reflects increased demand for
public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new
and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total
amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new
development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the
total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate
new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to
calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is
required to complete projects.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
8
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility
standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonab le relationship between new
development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not
fund deficiencies associated with existing development. An example of a facility standard is park
acres per 1,000 residents. Using suc h a standard, the analysis can estimate the amount of
parkland needed to serve the increase in population. Facility standards are identified for each
facility category included in this analysis. An in-depth discussion of facility standards is included
below.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
development, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library
space per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a
level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic
planning.
Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure
for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of
an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our
approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility
design standards.
Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities
required to accommodate development based on facility costs per unit of demand.
Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for
the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to
be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value), and are useful when different
facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per
capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facilit y needs and costs to serve new development.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new
development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned
facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing
inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community
has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method are
summarized below:
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to
demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a
fair share allocation of the cost of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An
example of the former is a wastewater trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An
example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be
needed only if new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing
= $/unit of demand
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
9
development, as well. Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the
standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used to calculate the
library facilities and park facilities fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire
station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system
of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than
the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency
required to bring existing development up to the p olicy-based standard. The local agency must
secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to
ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee. This method
is used to calculate the civic center facilities, community center facilities and aquatic facilities fees
in this study.
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand
from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard
currently serving existing development. By definition, the existing inventory method results in no
facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long -
range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to serve development are identified
through an annual capital improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a
new facility master plan. This approach is not used in this report.
Administrative Costs
This report presents a fee schedule for each facility category examined in the analysis. The total
fee includes a one percent (1%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard
overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and
administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue colle ction,
revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers
the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is
a user fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to
ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the
administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Organization of the report
= $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
10
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and
identification of development projections for population and employment. These projections are
used throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 7 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned
facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate
development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
Civic Center Facilities Park Facilities
Library Facilities Community Recreation Facilities
Aquatic Facilities
Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development
impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government
Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in
accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9.
11
2. Development Forecast
Development projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and
allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source
for the development projections used in this study based on a 2016 base year and a planning
horizon of build out.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future development are critical assumptions
used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
The estimate of existing development in 2016 is used as an indicator of existing
facility demand and to determine existing facility standards.
The estimate of total development at build out is used as an indicator of future
demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate development and
remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any.
Estimates of development from 2016 through build out are used to (1) allocate
facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2)
estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or
nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities. The service populations for all
facilities included in this study include a varying weighted amount of wo rkers, by category, to
reflect varying levels of demand for facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, development projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types
that impact fees have been calculated for are defined below.
Single Family and Townhomes: Detached and attached single-family
dwellings, including townhomes. Detached single family homes are one-unit
structures detached from any other houses. Attached single family homes (also
known as townhomes or row houses) are one-unit structures that have one or
more walls extending from ground to roof separating them from adjoining
structures.
Other Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as duplexes,
condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormitories. These are units
in structures containing two or more housing units. Second dwelling units on
single family lots are also included in the other multi-family land use category.
Senior Housing: All age-restricted dwellings.
Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development.
Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Senior Service Facilities: Convalescent care facilities.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed use
development with both multi-family and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would
be calculated separately for each land use type.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
12
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development
project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or
unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, workers, and building square
feet in Dublin, both in 2016 and at build out. These estimates are used to calculate the fees for
all fee categories.
The current population estimate for the Dublin comes from the California Department of Finance
(DOF), increased by City data showing 258 single family units and 111 multifamily units built
between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016. This increase in dwelling units is estimated to add
1,003 residents, using occupancy density factors in Table 2.2. The population projection for build
out is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Current estimates of dwelling units in Dublin also
come from the DOF with the same adjustments noted above. Total dwelling units at build out is
informed by data from the City.
Base year workers were estimated based on data provided by the California Employment
Development Department (EDD). The projected i ncrease in employment is based on projections
for Dublin from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area (2013).
Table 2.1: Current Population and Employment Estimates
2016 Build out
Growth (2016-
Build out)
Residents 1 54,749 75,000 20,251
Dwelling Units 1
Single Family / Townhome 13,700 18,756 5,056
Multi-family / Apartment / Condominium 6,764 8,916 2,152
Total 20,464 27,672 7,208
Employment 3 18,480 31,650 13,170
Sources: City of Dublin General Plan; Park and Recreation Master Plan (2015); California Department
of Finance, Table E-5, 2016; (CA DOF) California Employment Development Department, 1st Quarter,
2014 (CA EDD); Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, 2013; Willdan Financial
Services.
1 Base year population and dwelling units from CA Department of Finance, Table E-5, increased by
City data showing 258 single family units and 111 multifamily units built between January 1, 2016, and
June 30, 2016. Increase in dwelling units estimated to add 1,003 residents, using occupancy density
factors in Table 2.2. Excludes group quarters. Build out estimate of 75,000 residents from Park and
Recreation Master Plan (2015).
3 Base year employment from CA EDD. Excludes local government employees. Build out assumed to
be 2040 projection from ABAG's Plan Bay Area.
2 Existing and projected building square feet based on data from the City's General Plan.
Occupant Densities
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
13
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units or building square feet. Because
service demand is based on population, it is necessary to use occupant density assumptions to
calculate per-unit and per-square-foot fees. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable
relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population
associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most
appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the
land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential
occupant density factors for both the various types of dwelling units were calculated using the
most recently available data from US Census’ American Community Survey specific to the City of
Dublin. Table B25033 identifies the estimated population, by type of dwelling unit. Table B25024
identifies the total amount of dwelling units, by type. The occupant densities resulting from
dividing the population by the corresponding dwelling unit type is shown in Table 2.2.
The ACS does not provide sufficient data to calculate the occupant density for senior dwelling
units. Instead of ACS data, this analysis relies on data from an Energy Star Benchmarking study
for a Senior Care Facility. That study estimated the total number of senior supportive units in the
US and the estimate number of residents in those units. The resulting occupancy density factor
is shown in Table 2.2.
The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment
Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of
Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Dublin, the Natelson study
covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, making it
reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for
developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study.
Table 2.2: Occupancy Density Assumptions
Residential Dwelling Units
Single Family 3.08 Persons per dwelling unit
Multi Family 1.88 Persons per dwelling unit
Senior Housing 1.12 Persons per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.33 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 3.13 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Senior Service Facility 0.95 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Sources: Tables B25024 and B25033, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary
Report, Table 6, p. 16-23, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments,
October 31, 2001; Commission on affordable housing and health facility needs for seniors in the
21st century, 2002; Energy Star Benchmarking For Senior Care Facility, 2010; Willdan Financial
Services.
14
3. Civic Center Facilities
The purpose of the civic center impact fee is to fund the civic center facilities needed to serve
new development. The existing civic center currently houses City administration and police
services.
Service Population
Civic center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and
associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for civic center facilities.
While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand
by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these
services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are
typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is
based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and
reflects the degree to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for civic center
facilities.
Table 3.1: Civic Center Impact Fee Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2016)54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout)75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016)18,480 0.31 5,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)13,170 0.31 4,100
Total (Buildout)31,650 9,800
Combined
Existing (2016)60,400
New Development (2016-Buildout)24,400
Total (Buildout)84,800
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
Note: Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of work hours to non-work hours in a
week (40/128). Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
15
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s civic center facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
Table 3.2 shows the existing civic center building and land inventory. The replacement cost for
the building is based on a recent construction cost estim ate to build the Emerald Glen Recreation
& Aquatic Complex, excluding pool costs. The value of land is assumed to be $1,089,000 per
acre based on the “campus office” valuation from a September 2016 appraisal by Associated
Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update.
Unit Cost Total Value
Civic Center Land 1 4.84 acres 1,089,000$ 5,270,800$
Civic Center Building 2
Police Services 20,054 sq. ft.8,296,600$
City Administration 32,633 sq. ft.13,500,800
Subtotal - Civic Center/Police Building 52,687 sq. ft.413.715$ 21,797,400$
Total Value - Civic Center 27,068,200$
Note: Totals have been rounded to the hundreds.
Table 3.2: Existing Civic Center Facilities Inventory
Inventory
Sources: Dublin Building Detail Report, 2012; Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,
2 Facility values identified in: Dublin Building Detail Report , 2012.
1 Land value for campus office land use identified in: Appraisal Consulting Assignment Report for City of Dublin,
September 2016.
Planned Facilities
The City of Dublin plans to make improvements to the public safety complex . The total cost of
the improvement is $13.5 million. Table 3.3 presents the planned civic center facilities and cost
estimates.
Table 3.3: Planned Civic Center Facilities
Amount Units
Cost per
Unit Total Cost
Public Safety Complex Improvements for Police Services 1 25,836 square feet 523$ 13,512,200$
Total Cost - Planned Civic Center Facilities 13,512,200$
Sources: City of Dublin Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2016-2021, June 2016; Cultural Arts Center Feasibility
Review, 2016; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Total project cost = $15 million for 28,700 square feet. 25,836 square feet allocated to police services, including shared space.
Note: Total allocated costs rounded to the nearest hundred.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
16
Cost Allocation
Table 3.4 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This value is calculated by
dividing cost of total cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value
per worker.
Table 3.4: Civic Center Facilities System Standard
Calculation
Value of Existing Facilities A 27,068,200$
Value of Planned Facilities B 13,512,200
Total System Value (Buildout)C = A + B 40,580,400$
Future Service Population (Buildout)D 84,800
Cost per Capita E = C / D 479$
Facility Standard per Resident E 479$
Facility Standard per Worker1 F = E x 0.31 148
1 Based on a worker weighting factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3; Willdan Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.5 shows the proposed civic center facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is
converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwe lling unit and employment densities
(persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
17
Table 3.5: Civic Center Facilities Fee - System Standard
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family & Townhome 479$ 3.08 1,475$ 15$ 1,490$
Other Multi-Family 479 1.88 901 9 910
Senior Housing 479 1.12 536 5 541
Nonresidential
Commercial 148$ 2.33 345$ 3$ 348$ 0.35$
Office 148 3.13 463 5 468 0.47
Industrial 148 1.16 172 2 174 0.17
Senior Service Facility 148 0.95 141 1 142 0.14
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee
justification analyses.
Projected Fee Revenue
Table 3.6 projects civic center fee revenue by multiplying the cost per capita from Table 3.4 by
the increase in service population. After accounting for Dublin Crossings, which has prepaid
fees, the civic center facilities fee will generate $10.3 million through the planning horizon. Non-
fee funding sources will have to fund $526,298 worth of the planned facilities, or new
development will have paid too high a fee.
Table 3.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Calculation
Cost per Capita A 479$
Growth in Service Population (2016 - Buildout)B 24,400
Fee Revenue C = A x B 11,687,600$
Less Dublin Crossings - Prepaid Fees D 1,427,000
Net Fee Revenue E = C - D 10,260,600$
Cost of Planned Facilities F 13,512,200$
Net Fee Revenue E 10,260,600
Existing Fund Balances G 2,725,302
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified H = F - E - G 526,298$
Sources: Tables 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.
18
4. Library Facilities
The purpose of the fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities. A
fee schedule is presented based on the planned facilities standard of library facilities in the City of
Dublin to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
Library facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and
associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.
Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for library facilities. The
0.25-weighting factor for workers is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study
update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. That analysis
relied on survey data of nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and
Pleasanton are adjacent suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker
demand for these types of facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 4.1: Library Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2016)54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout)75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016)18,480 0.25 4,600
New Development (2016-Buildout)13,170 0.25 3,300
Total (Buildout)31,650 7,900
Combined
Existing (2016)59,300
New Development (2016-Buildout)23,600
Total (Buildout)82,900
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Demand per worker is weighted at 0.25 of demand per resident based on the Public Facilities Fee
Study update completed in 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Totals have been rounded to the
nearest hundred.
Facility Inventories, Plans & Standards
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
19
Table 4.2 shows the existing inventory of library facilities in the City of Dublin. The replacement
cost for the building is based on a recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen
Recreation & Aquatic Complex, excluding pool costs. The value of land is $1,089,000 per acre
based on the “campus office” valuation from a September 2016 appraisal by Associated Right of
Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update.
Table 4.2: Existing Library Facilities Inventory
Unit Cost Total Cost
Existing
Land 3.75 acres 1,089,000$ 4,083,800$
Building1 37,000 sq. ft.730 27,010,000
Total Value of Existing Facilities 31,093,800$
Amount
1 The 37,000 square foot library building was completed in Fiscal Year 2002-03 and 30,000 square feet
was occupied. The 21st Century Room was built out in FY 2016-17. The remaining 5,150 square feet of
unoccupied space was reserved for future tenant improvements.
Source: City of Dublin; Dublin Building Detail Report, 2012; Appraisal Consluting Assignment Report for
City of Dublin, September 2016; Bowker Annual Library and Trade Book Almanac; Willdan Financial
Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 4.3 displays the planned library facilities. The City plans to make improvements to the
unimproved area of the existing library. The total cost of planned library improvements is
approximately $1.7 million.
Table 4.3: Planned Library Facilities
Unit Cost Total Cost
Building Improvements
Civic Center Library Improvements - Phase II 5,150 sq. ft.322.33$ 1,660,000$
Total Cost - Planned Library Facilities 1,660,000$
Note: Total rounded to the nearest hundred.
Amount
Sources: City of Dublin Adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2016-2021, June 2016; Willdan
Financial Services.
Facility Standards
Table 4.4 calculates the existing and future library facility standards. At buildout the City will have
a standard of 0.45 library square feet per capita.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
20
Table 4.4: Library Square Feet per Capita
Existing Buildout
Library Square Feet1 31,850 37,000
Service Population2 59,300 82,900
Square Feet per Capita 0.54 0.45
2 Includes residents and weighted workers. See Table 4.1.
Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
1 City constructed 37,000 square foot library building in 2002-03, but
only furnished 31,850 square feet of the building. Remainder is
funded through this impact fee.
Cost Allocation
Table 4.5 displays the calculation of the planned facilities per capita standard. This value is
calculated by dividing the net cost of the planned facilities by the increase in service population.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.25 to determine the value
per worker.
In this case, the negative impact fee fund balance is also included as a planned facilities cost.
The fund balance was loaned from the General Fund to the library impact fee fund and was spent
on facilities to serve new development, ahead of that development. In total, over $2 million of
facilities to serve new development will be funded through the impact fee. Note that the value of
the planned facilities is equal to the revenue generated by the fee.
Table 4.5: Library Facilities Planned Facilities Standard
Calculation
Value of Planned Facilities A 1,660,000$
(Less Existing Fund Balance)1 B (378,888)
Net Value of Planned Facilities C = A - B 2,038,888$
Service Population Growth (2016 to Buildout)D 23,600
Cost per Capita E = C / D 86$
Facility Standard per Resident E 86$
Facility Standard per Worker2 F = E x 0.25 22
2 Based on a worker weighting factor of 0.25.
Sources: Tables 4.1, and 4.3; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Library fund is currently at a deficit. Fee revenue was used to construct facilities in
anticipation of demand from new development. Costs incurred were needed as a result of
future demand and are legitimate to include in this fee calculation.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
21
Fee Schedule
Table 4.6 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is
converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densit ies
(persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
Table 4.6: Library Facilities Fee - Planned Facilities Standard
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family & Townhome 86$ 3.08 265$ 3$ 268$
Other Multi-Family 86 1.88 162 2 164
Senior Housing 86 1.12 96 1 97
Nonresidential
Commercial 22$ 2.33 51$ 1$ 52$ 0.05$
Office 22 3.13 69 1 70 0.07
Industrial 22 1.16 26 - 26 0.03
Senior Service Facility 22 0.95 21 - 21 0.02
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.5; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee
program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting,
and fee justification analyses.
22
5. Park Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to fund the park facilities needed to serve new
development. The impact fee is based on maintaining the City’s existing parkland standards.
Service Population
Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park acres per 1,000 residents.
As residents are considered to be the primary users of parks in Dublin, demand for parks and
associated facilities is based on the City’s residential population, rather than a combined resident-
worker service population. However, when allocating costs for community parks, a share of
demand is allocated to workers. The 0.23-weighting factor for worker demand for community
parks is based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998
by Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. That analysis relied on survey data of
nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and Pleasanton are adjacent
suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker demand for these types of
facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 5.1 provides estimates of the City’s current and projected park service population.
Table 5.1: Parks Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2016)54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout)75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016)18,480 0.23 4,300
New Development (2016-Buildout)13,170 0.23 3,000
Total (Buildout)31,650 7,300
Combined
Existing (2016)59,000
New Development (2016-Buildout)23,300
Total (Buildout)82,300
1 Worker demand is weighted at 0.23 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public
Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group. Totals have been rounded
to the nearest hundred.
Source: Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group; City of
Dublin; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
23
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s park facility inventory, facility standards, and park facility costs.
Existing Inventory
The City of Dublin maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 5.2
summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits.
School parks are included because the City has joint use agreements for using th e school park
facilities outside of school hours. School parks are counted as neighborhood parks for the
purpose of calculating parkland standards.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
24
Table 5.2: Parkland Inventory
Name
Improved
Acres
Unimproved
Acres Total
Community Parks
Dublin Civic Center/Library Grounds 11.42 - 11.42
Dublin Crossing (City Contribution)1 - 8.73 8.73
Dublin Historic Park and Museums 7.78 - 7.78
Dublin Senior Center 2.00 - 2.00
Dublin Sports Grounds 22.77 - 22.77
E5 (Jordan Ranch)2 6.22 - 6.22
Emerald Glen Park 49.14 - 49.14
Fallon Sports Park 46.17 14.41 60.58
Shannon Park 9.67 - 9.67
Wallis Ranch (deeded/credits; unimproved)- 8.96 8.96
Subtotal 155.17 32.10 187.27
Community Parks - Nature Based
Iron Horse Nature Park - 12.13 12.13
Sunrise Park 10.75 - 10.75
Subtotal 10.75 12.13 22.88
Neighborhood Parks
Alamo Creek Park 5.26 - 5.26
Bray Commons 4.78 - 4.78
Devany Square 1.91 - 1.91
Dolan Park 4.85 - 4.85
Dougherty Hills Dog Park 1.43 - 1.43
Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Park
(deeded/credits)4.99 - 4.99
Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square
(deeded/credits; unimproved)- 2.00 2.00
Kolb Park 4.86 - 4.86
Mape Memorial Park 2.68 - 2.68
Moller Ranch Neighborhood Square - 1.10 1.10
Passatempo Park 5.01 - 5.01
Piazza Sorrento 2.00 - 2.00
Positano Hills Park 4.60 - 4.60
Sean Diamond (deeded/credits; unimproved)- 5.03 5.03
Schaefer Ranch Park 10.55 - 10.55
Stagecoach 0.82 - 0.82
Clover Park 2.00 - 2.00
Ted Fairfield 6.97 - 6.97
Subtotal 62.71 8.13 70.84
School Parks 43.60 - 43.60
Planned Parkland 3
Dublin Crossing (Developer Contribution)1 - 21.27 21.27
E6 (Dublin Crossing)2 5.00 - 5.00
Subtotal 5.00 21.27 26.27
Total 277.23 73.63 350.86
Source: City of Dublin.
1 Dublin Crossing Community Park is 30 acres. 21.27 acres are part of a developer contribution and 8.73 acres are
part of the City's contribution.
3 These parks are excluded from the parkland standards calculation.
2 These sites are school improvements that are either under construction or planned for near construction. School
park sites will only receive park credit if held in fee title by the City.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
25
Parkland Unit Costs
Table 5.3 shows the estimated cost per acre for developing parkland, including land ac quisition,
standard park improvements, including construction and soft costs. The facility development cost
per acre, by park type, is added to the standard land acquisition costs of $2,2308,680, to
determine the total cost to develop an acre of neighborho od, community, or nature-based
community parkland within the City. Nature-based community parkland is assumed to cost $15
per square foot.
Table 5.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Item
Neighborhood
Parks
Community
Parks
Community
Parks -
Nature Based
Improvement Cost per Acre - Construction 504,000$ 504,000$ 388,700$
Improvement Cost per Acre - Soft Costs 216,000 216,000 166,600
Improvement Cost per Acre1 720,000$ 720,000$ 555,300$
Land Acquisition per Acre2 2,308,680 2,308,680 653,400
Total - Land and Improvements Cost per Acre 3,028,680$ 3,028,680$ 1,208,700$
Sources: City of Dublin; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Assumes $2,308,680 per acre based on medium density residential valuation from September 2016 appraisal by
Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in this impact fee update. $15 per square foot
assumed for nature based community parkland based rural residential/agricultural valuation from the same study.
1 Improvement costs estimated based on recent park construction cost estimates for community parks, open space
parks, and actual data from Fallon Sports Park and parks within the surrounding communities.
Improved Parkland Equivalent
Before calculating the existing parkland standard, unimproved parkland owned by the City must
be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. This conversion is necessary so that
the resulting parkland standards calculated later in this chapter reflects the City’s investment in
parkland. Unimproved parkland costs less than im proved parkland. If unimproved parkland was
used to calculate the parkland standard, then the resulting standard would overstate the City’s
standards. Similarly, if unimproved parkland were completely excluded from the calculation of the
City’s parkland standard, then the resulting standard would be understated.
Table 5.4 details this conversion. The conversion is based on the ratio of the cost of an improved
acre of land (including land and improvements) relative to an acre of unimproved parkland (only
land), by park type.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
26
Table 5.4: Undeveloped Parkland Equivalent
Type
Neighborhood
Parks
Community
Parks
Community
Parks - Nature
Based Total
Parkland Improved 3,028,680$ 3,028,680$ 1,208,700$
Undeveloped Land 2,308,680 2,308,680 653,400
Undeveloped Land Costs 76.23%76.23%54.06%
Percentage of Parkland costs
Undeveloped Acres 8.13 32.10 12.13 52.36
Equivalent Improved Acres 6.20 24.47 6.56 37.23
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.3; Willdan Financial Services.
Existing Park Facility Standards
Table 5.5 shows the existing parkland standard based on the parkland acreage shown in Table
5.2, the improved equivalent acres calculated in Table 5.4 and the existing residential population
shown in Table 5.1. The City has an existing standard of 5.66 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. The City’s current policy standard shown in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master
Plan is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The standard is segmented between park types.
Table 5.5: Existing Parkland Standards
Neighborhood
Parks1
Community
Parks
Community
Parks -
Nature
Based Total
Existing Developed Acres 106.31 155.17 10.75 272.23
Equivalent Unimproved 6.20 24.47 6.56 37.23
Total 112.51 179.64 17.31 309.46
Existing Population 54,700 54,700 54,700
Existing Standard 2.06 3.28 0.32 5.66
Policy Standard 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Includes neighborhood parks and school parks.
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 5.6 calculates the value of the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at
the City’s policy standards, segmented by park type.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
27
For improvement needs, the policy standard per type of parkland is multiplied by the increase in
service population to determine the total amount of improvements needed through buildout. Note
that the service population for improvements excludes 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings,
which has already satisfied its fee requirements. Expected developer parkland credits, and fund
balance equivalents are subtracted from the total needed improvement acreage to determine the
net park improvement needs.
For land needs, the policy standard per type of parkland is multiplied by the increase in service
population to determine the total amount of improvements needed through buildout. Note that the
service population for improvements excludes 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings, which has
already satisfied its fee requirements. Additionally, the service population excludes another 4,500
resident’s worth of development that has already satisfied its land dedication requirements.
Expected developer parkland credits and the existing amount of unimproved acreage are
subtracted to determine the net amount of land needed to serve new development.
The net improvement needs, and net land needs are then multiplied by the cost of improvements
and land to determine the total cost of parkland facilities to serve new development. Existing fund
balances, by category, are subtracted from the costs to determine the parkland and improvement
costs remaining to achieve the policy standards by the planning horizon. In total, $91.6 million in
parkland and improvements are needed to serve new development through the planning horizon.
Table 5.6: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development
Calculation
Neighborhood
Parks
Community
Parks
Community
Parks - Nature
Based Total
Improvements
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents)A 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00
Population Growth (2016-Buildout)1 B 15,500 15,500 15,500
Facility Needs (acres)C = (B / 1,000) x A 26.35 46.50 4.65 77.50
Facility Needs (acres)C 26.35 46.50 4.65 77.50
Improvements Credits D 2.02 - 0.76 2.78
Fund Balance Equivalent E 6.04 9.15 0.81 16.00
Net Improvements Needs F = C - D - E 18.29 37.35 3.08 58.72
Land
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 residents)A 1.70 3.00 0.30 5.00
Population Growth (2016-Buildout)1 G 11,000 11,000 11,000
Facility Needs (acres)H = (G / 1,000) x A 18.70 33.00 3.30 55.00
Facility Needs (acres)H 18.70 33.00 3.30 55.00
Land Credits I 10.04 13.21 3.29 26.54
Fund Balance Equivalent J 3.52 3.85 0.10 7.47
Quimby Fund Balance K (0.50) - - (0.50)
Net Land Needs L = H - I - J - K 5.64 15.94 (0.09) 21.49
Improvement Cost per Acre M 720,000$ 720,000$ 555,300$
Land Acquisition per Acre N 2,308,680 2,308,680 653,400
Total - Land and Improvements Cost per Acre O = M + N 3,028,680$ 3,028,680$ 1,208,700$
Improvements Needed to Serve New Development 2 P = F x M 13,168,800$ 26,892,000$ 1,710,324$ 41,771,124$
Land Needed to Serve New Development Q = L x N 13,020,955 36,800,359 - 49,821,314
Total Cost of Facilities R = P + Q 26,189,755$ 63,692,359$ 1,710,324$ 91,592,438$
2 Community nature based improvements are based on the development of the Iron Horse Nature Park.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.3, and 5.5.
1 Assumes that approximately 4,500 residents worth of development has satisfied parkland, but not improvement fee requirements. Additionally, population
growth totaling 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings is also excluded from this table for land and improvements. (Land service population growth: 20,300 -
4,500 - 4,800 = 11,000. Improvements service population growth: 20,300 - 4,800 = 15,500).
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
28
Parks Cost per Capita
Table 5.7 calculates the cost per capita necessary to achieve the parkland policy standards by
the planning horizon. The net cost of land and improvements identified in Table 5.6 are divided
by the increase in service population to determine the cost per capita. The service population for
neighborhood parks only includes residents. The service population for community parks and
nature-based community parks includes residents and a weighted amount of workers. The cost
per capita is shown separately for land and improvements and for each type of park facility.
Table 5.7: Cost Per Capita Standard
Calculation
Neighborhood
Parks1
Community
Parks2
Com. Nature
Parks2 Total
New Development Net Facility Needs
Improvements3 A 13,168,800$ 26,892,000$ 1,710,324$ 41,771,124$
Land B 13,020,955 36,800,359 - 49,821,314
Total C = A + C 26,189,755$ 63,692,359$ 1,710,324$ 91,592,438$
Service Population Growth (Improvements)4 D 15,500 18,500 18,500
Service Population Growth (Land)4 E 11,000 14,000 14,000
Cost per Capita
Improvements F = A / D 850$ 1,454$ 92$ 2,396$
Land G = B / E 1,184 2,629 - 3,813
Total Cost per Resident H = F + G 2,034$ 4,083$ 92$ 6,209$
Improvements I = F x 0.23 -$ 334$ 21$ 355$
Land J = G x 0.23 - 605 - 605
Total Cost per Worker K= I + J -$ 939$ 21$ 960$
1 Neighborhood parks fee does not apply to nonresidential development.
2 Service population growth includes weighted workers equivalent to 4,900 residents.
3 Community nature based improvements are based on the development of the Iron Horse Nature Park.
Sources: Tables 5.3 and 5.5; Willdan Financial Services.
4 Assumes that approximately 4,500 residents worth of development has satisfied parkland, but not improvement fee requirements. Population
growth totaling 4,800 residents from Dublin Crossings is excluded from this table for both land and improvements.
Fee Schedule
Tables 5.8a and b show the proposed park facilities fee schedule for residential and
nonresidential land uses, respectively. The proposed fees are based on the costs per capita
shown in Table 5.7. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based
on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as shown in Table 2.2.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
29
Table 5.8a: Park Facilities Impact Fee - Residential
A B C = A x B D E = C + D
Cost Per
Land Use
Resident/
Worker Density Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge 2 Total Fee
Residential
Single-Family & Townhome
Neighborhood Parkland 1,184$ 3.08 3,647$ 36$ 3,683$
Community Parkland 2,629 3.08 8,097 81 8,178
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 3.08 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 850 3.08 2,618 26 2,644
Community Park Improvements 1,454 3.08 4,478 45 4,523
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 92 3.08 283 3 286
Total 6,209$ 19,123$ 191$ 19,314$
Other Multi-Family
Neighborhood Parkland 1,184$ 1.88 2,226$ 22$ 2,248$
Community Parkland 2,629 1.88 4,943 49 4,992
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 1.88 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 850 1.88 1,598 16 1,614
Community Park Improvements 1,454 1.88 2,734 27 2,761
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 92 1.88 173 2 175
Total 6,209$ 11,674$ 116$ 11,790$
Senior Housing
Neighborhood Parkland 1,184$ 1.12 1,326$ 13$ 1,339$
Community Parkland 2,629 1.12 2,944 29 2,973
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 1.12 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements 850 1.12 952 10 962
Community Park Improvements 1,454 1.12 1,628 16 1,644
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 92 1.12 103 1 104
Total 6,209$ 6,953$ 69$ 7,022$
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.7; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
30
Table 5.8b: Park Facilities Impact Fee - Nonresidential
A B C = A x B D E = C + D
Cost Per
Land Use
Resident/
Worker Density Base Fee 1
Admin
Charge 2 Total Fee
Nonresidential
Commercial
Neighborhood Parkland -$ 2.33 -$ -$ -$
Community Parkland 605 2.33 1,410 14 1,424
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 2.33 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 2.33 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 2.33 778 8 786
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 2.33 49 - 49
Total 960$ 2,237$ 22$ 2,259$
Office
Neighborhood Parkland -$ 3.13 -$ -$ -$
Community Parkland 605 3.13 1,894 19 1,913
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 3.13 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 3.13 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 3.13 1,045 10 1,055
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 3.13 66 1 67
Total 960$ 3,005$ 30$ 3,035$
Industrial
Neighborhood Parkland -$ 1.16 -$ -$ -$
Community Parkland 605 1.16 702 7 709
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 1.16 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 1.16 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 1.16 387 4 391
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 1.16 24 - 24
Total 960$ 1,113$ 11$ 1,124$
Senior Service Facility
Neighborhood Parkland -$ 0.95 -$ -$ -$
Community Parkland 605 0.95 575 6 581
Community Parkland - Nature Based - 0.95 - - -
Neighborhood Park Improvements - 0.95 - - -
Community Park Improvements 334 0.95 317 3 320
Nature Based Community Park Improvements 21 0.95 20 - 20
Total 960$ 912$ 9$ 921$
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.7; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
31
6. Community Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the community recreation facilities impact fee is to fund the community recreation
facilities needed to serve new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing
standard of community recreation facilities per capita.
Service Population
Community recreation center facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand
for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including
residents and workers.
Table 6.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for community recreation
facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to
demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it i s reasonable to assume that demand for
these services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings
are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers is
based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by
Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. That analysis relied on survey data of
nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and Pleasanton are adjacent
suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker demand for these types of
facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 6.1: Community Recreation Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2016)54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout)75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016)18,480 0.05 900
New Development (2016-Buildout)13,170 0.05 700
Total (Buildout)31,650 1,600
Combined
Existing (2016)55,600
New Development (2016-Buildout)21,000
Total (Buildout)76,600
1 Worker demand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public
Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group.
Source: Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group; City of
Dublin; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
32
Facility Inventories & Standards
Table 6.2 shows the inventory of existing community recreation facilities. Note that a share of the
Stager Community Gymnasium is allocated to City use based on the City’s proportion contribution
to the construction of the facility.
Square
Feet
City of
Dublin
Share
Square Feet
Allocated to
City Use
Cost per
Square
Foot1 Total Value
Community Recreation Facilities
Stager Community Gymnasium2 6,002 69%4,141 701$ 2,902,800$
Senior Center 15,500 100%15,500 701 10,865,500
Shannon Community Center 20,088 100%20,088 701 14,081,700
EGRAC Complex - Phase I3 33,826 100%33,826 1,051 35,561,400
Heritage Facilities
Heritage Center and Bell Tower 2,482 100%2,482 701$ 1,739,900$
Old St. Raymond's Church/Visitor Center 1,550 100%1,550 701 1,086,600
Main House 2,304 100%2,304 701 1,615,100
Old House Restroom 1,650 100%1,650 701 1,156,700
Sunday School Barn 2,900 100%2,900 701 2,032,900
Total Existing Facilities 86,302 84,441 71,042,600$
Note: Totals rounded to nearest hundred.
Sources: Dublin Building Detail Report, 2012; Willdan Financial Services.
2 Allocation of Stager Community Gymnasium square footage and facility value to City of Dublin based on the City's contribution of $1
million to the construction of the facility. $1 million represents 69% of the total facility costs, based on the Agreement between the City
and Dublin Unified School District Regarding Joint Funding of Community Use Gymnasium dated October 1, 1997.
Table 6.2: Existing Community Recreation Facilities Inventory
1 Cost to construct new recreation centers based on recent construction cost estimate to build the Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic
Complex, excluding pool costs. Cost per square foot (unrounded) for EGRAC Phase 1 = $1,051.304.
3 Total cost of EGRAC Phase 1 is $43,830,900. $8,269,500 of that is for the aquatic center/pools and is shown in Table 7.3.
Planned Facilities
Table 6.3 details the planned community and recreational facilities. The City plans to complete
Phase II of the Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic Complex, including a preschool. The City
also has future plans for improvements of a 13,500 square foot Cultural Arts Center.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
33
Table 6.3: Planned Community Recreation Facilities
Square
Feet
Cost per
Square Foot Total Value
EGRAC Complex - Phase II (Including Preschool)21,000 730.00$ 15,330,000$
Cultural Arts Center Improvements 13,500 414.81 5,600,000
Total Planned Facilities 34,500 20,930,000$
Sources: 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program; Willdan Financial Services.
Note: Totals rounded to the nearest hundred.
Cost per Capita Standard
Table 6.4 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This value is calculated by
dividing cost of total cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker -weighting factor of 0.05 to determine the value
per worker.
Calculation
Value of Existing Facilities A 71,042,600$
Value of Planned Facilities B 20,930,000
Total Value of Facilities at Buildout C = A + B 91,972,600$
Future Service Population D 76,600
Cost per Capita E = C / D 1,201$
Facility Standard per Resident E 1,201$
Facility Standard per Worker1 F = E x 0.05 60
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Table 6.4: Community Recreation Facilities System Plan
Standard
Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the proposed community recreation facilities fee schedule. The system standard
cost per capita from Table 6.4 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on
dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square
feet of nonresidential building space).
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
34
Table 6.5: Community Recreation Facilities Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family & Townhome 1,201$ 3.08 3,699$ 37$ 3,736$
Other Multi-Family 1,201 1.88 2,258 23 2,281
Senior Housing 1,201 1.12 1,345 13 1,358
Nonresidential
Commercial 60$ 2.33 140$ 1$ 141$ 0.14$
Office 60 3.13 188 2 190 0.19
Industrial 60 1.16 70 1 71 0.07
Senior Service Facility 60 0.95 57 1 58 0.06
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.4; Willdan Financial Services
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Projected Fee Revenue
Table 6.6 projects community recreation center fee revenue by multiplying the cost per capita
from Table 6.4 by the increase in service population. The fee will generate $25.2 million through
the planning horizon. After accounting for the negative existing fund balance, non -fee funding
sources will have to fund $3.9 million worth of the planned facilities.
Calculation
Cost per Capita A 1,201$
Growth in Service Population (2016 - Buildout)B 21,000
Projected Fee Revenue C = A x B 25,221,000$
Total Project Cost D 20,930,000$
Less Projected Fee Revenue C 25,221,000
Negative Fund Balance E (8,151,690)
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified F = D - C - E 3,860,690$
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.5.
Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - Community Recreation
Facilities
35
7. Aquatic Facilities
The purpose of the aquatic facilities impact fee is to fund the aquatic facilities needed to serve
new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing standard of aquatic
facilities per capita.
Service Population
Aquatic facilities serve both residents and businesses. Therefore, demand for services and
associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.
Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for aquatic facilities. While
specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by
businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these
services is less for one worker compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are
typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.05-weighting factor for workers is
based on analysis contained in the Public Facilities Fee Study update completed in 1998 by
Hausrath Economics Group for the City of Dublin. That analysis relied on survey data of
nonresidential facilities use in nearby Pleasanton. Since Dublin and Pleasanton are adjacent
suburban cities in the East Bay, it is reasonable to assume that worker demand for these types of
facilities from Pleasanton is similar to worker demand in Dublin.
Table 7.1: Aquatic Facilities Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2016)54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout)75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016)18,480 0.05 900
New Development (2016-Buildout)13,170 0.05 700
Total (Buildout)31,650 1,600
Combined
Existing (2016)55,600
New Development (2016-Buildout)21,000
Total (Buildout)76,600
1 Worker demand is weighted at 0.05 of resident demand based on the City of Dublin Public
Facilities Fee Study completed 1998 by Hausrath Economics Group.
Source: Table 2.1; Public Facilities Fee Study, 1998 Update, Hausrath Economics Group; City of
Dublin; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
36
Facility Inventories & Standards
Table 7.2 shows the inventory of existing aquatic facilities. The value of the existing aquatic
facilities, approximately $487 per square foot, is based on a recent cost estimate for the Emerald
Glen Recreation & Aquatic Complex. Note that the costs only include the pool facilities
themselves; buildings and site work are included in the community recreation facilities fee.
Table 7.2: Existing Aquatic Facilities
Surface
Area
Cost per
Square
Foot1 Total Cost
Facilities
Emerald Glen Indoor Pool 6,270 3,053,200$
Emerald Glen Competitive Pool 6,174 3,006,500
Emerald Glen Play Pool 4,538 2,209,800
Total Value 16,982 486.96$ 8,269,500$
Note: Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
1 Represents cost of pools only, excluding building and site work.
Source: City of Dublin, Emerald Glen Aquatic Center, Dahlin Group, CD Cost Estimate, 19 July 2014.
Cost per Capita Standard
Table 7.3 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This value is calculated by
dividing cost of total cost of existing and planned facilities by the service population at buildout.
The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.05 to determine the value
per worker.
Table 7.3: Aquatic Facilities System Standard
Calculation
Value of Existing Facilities A 8,269,500$
Future Service Population B 76,600
Cost per Capita C = A / B 108$
Facility Standard per Resident C 108$
Facility Standard per Worker1 D = C x 0.05 5
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.05.
Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.2; Willdan Financial Services.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
37
Fee Schedule
Table 7.4 shows the proposed aquatic facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to
a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment de nsities (persons per
dwelling unit or workers per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
Table 7.4: Aquatic Facilities - System Plan Standard
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single-Family & Townhome 108$ 3.08 333$ 3$ 336$
Other Multi-Family 108 1.88 203 2 205
Senior Housing 108 1.12 121 1 122
Nonresidential
Commercial 5$ 2.33 12$ -$ 12$ 0.01$
Office 5 3.13 16 - 16 0.02
Industrial 5 1.16 6 - 6 0.01
Senior Service Facility 5 0.95 5 - 5 0.01
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.3; Willdan Financial Services
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
analyses.
Projected Fee Revenue
Table 7.5 projects aquatic facilities fee revenue by multiplying the cost per capita from Table 7.3
by the increase in service population. The fee will generate $2.3 million through the planning
horizon. After accounting for the negative existing fund balance, non-fee funding sources will
have to fund $2.3 million worth of the aquatic facilities.
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
38
Calculation
Cost per Capita A 108$
Growth in Service Population (2016 - Buildout)B 21,000
Projected Fee Revenue C = A x B 2,268,000$
Remaining Project Cost D -$
Less Fee Revenue C 2,268,000
Less Existing Fund Balance E (4,558,820)
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified G = D - C - E 2,290,820$
Sources: Tables 7.1, and 7.3.
Table 7.5: Revenue Projection - Aquatic Facilities
39
8. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section
66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures
including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any
other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance
and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go
into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.
Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund
its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees
for inflation:
Buildings – Engineering News-Record’s Building Cost Index (BCI)
Equipment – Consumer Price Index, All Items, 1982-84=100 for All Urban Consumers
(CPI-U)
The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation.
With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation,
as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic fluctuations that the localized indices
are subject to.
Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures
fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land
purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee
revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct
more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when
significant new data on development forecasts and/or facility plans become available.
Reporting Requirements
The City complies with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the
source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt
of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure
needs. The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in
this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of
those revenues.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as
long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City’s facilities. If the total
cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider
revising the fees accordingly.
A-40
9. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and
imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities
and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025,
establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.
The Act requires local agencies to document five Mitigation Fee Act findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this
report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All
statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate development. The
purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development
for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest
by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the
facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to
serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the
City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be
restricted to funding the following facility categories: civic center, library, aquatic facilities, parks
and community recreation facilities.
Benefit Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).
The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings,
and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new
development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Under the
Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus,
a reasonable relationship can be shown betwe en the use of fee revenue and the new
development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and
the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
City of Dublin Public Facilities Fee Update
41
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new
development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single
facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationsh ip to
the type of development. For most facility categories, service population standards are calculated
based upon the number of residents associated with residential developme nt and the number of
workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard,
one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand
between residential and non-residential development.
The standards used to identify development needs are also used to determine if planned facilities
will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This
approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned
facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities
associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Development Forecast provides a description of how service population and
development forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards
sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amo unt and the
cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new
development the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s
size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher
fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a
reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities
attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Development Forecast and Unit Costs, or the Service Population sections in each
facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are
determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility
category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
RESOLUTION NO. xx- 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
***************
REVISING THE FIRE FACILITIES FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Dublin Municipal
Code Chapter 7.78 creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a
Public Facilities Fee (“Fee”) to pay for municipally owned public facilities within the
jurisdictional limits of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (“Eastern Dublin
GPA”) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (“SP”) were adopted by the City in 1993; and
WHEREAS, the SP was amended in October 1996 by Resolution No. 124-96;
and
WHEREAS, both the General Plan and the SP have been updated from time to
time; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin GPA outlined future land uses for approximately
4176 acres within the City’s eastern sphere of influence including approximately 13,906
dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial, office, and industrial
development; and
WHEREAS, the SP provided more specific detailed goals, policies and action
programs for approximately 3313 acres within the Eastern Dublin GPA area nearest to
the City; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP areas (“Eastern Dublin”) include all
properties in the Eastern Extended Planning Area and the City’s eastern Sphere of
Influence as shown on the Land Use Map (Exhibit A) in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report (“Eastern Dublin ElR”) was
prepared for the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the
Council on May 10, 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993
and August 22, 1994 (“Addenda”) have been prepared and considered by the Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan anticipates new development in several
areas, including Eastern Dublin and Western Dublin, as well as in fill development; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (“Schaefer EIR”) was prepared for
the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment (SCH No. 95033070) and certified by the
City Council on July 9, 1996 by Resolution No. 76-96; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1989, the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority
approved a “Fire Station Location Study” (“Station Location Study”) prepared by
Hughes-Heiss; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999, in Resolution No. 206-99 the City Council
approved a “Fire Station Prototype Study” (“Station Prototype Study”) prepared by
Dommer Associates; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Building Code, as adopted in Dublin Municipal Code
section 7.32.260 (“Building Code”) requires a five-minute fire response time; and
WHEREAS, a goal of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (8.3.1) is to ensure that
fire protection services in Eastern Dublin are consistent with standards maintained in
the rest of the City, including a five-minute response lime; and
WHEREAS, the Station Location Study, Station Prototype Study, Building Code,
SP, Eastern Dublin EIR and Addenda, and Schaefer EIR describe the municipal public
facilities necessary to provide adequate fire services in the City, including construction
of two new fire stations; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, the Station Location Study, Station Prototype
Study, Building Code, SP, Eastern Dublin GPA, Eastern Dublin EIR and Addenda, and
Schaefer EIR describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing
public facilities in the City of Dublin through the year 2025 and contain an analysis of the
need for new municipal public facilities required by future development within the City of
Dublin, including two new fire stations and related necessary equipment; and
WHEREAS, a detailed comprehensive study of the impacts of contemplated
future development on existing fire-related public facilities in the City of Dublin through
the year 2025, along with an analysis of the need for new fire -related public facilities
and improvements required by future developments, was prepared by Hausrath
Economics Group, dated March 1997 entitled “Dublin Fire Facilities Financing Study”;
and
WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services prepared a study, entitled “Fire Facilities
Impact Fee Update”, dated July 19, 2017, (Exhibit B, hereafter “Willdan Study”), which
updated the 1997 Hausrath Study, the 2000 Fire Facilities Impact Fee Update, the 2003
Fire Facilities Impact Fee Update, and the 2005 Fire Facilities Impact Fee Update
prepared by MuniFinancial (collectively “the Previous Studies”); and
WHEREAS, the Willdan Study updates the fee to reflect the fee program’s
outstanding obligations for the construction of the two fire stations (Fire Station 17 & 18)
and updates the population projections to reflect current circumstances; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Government Code, at least fourteen (14)
days prior to the public hearing at which this resolution was adopted, notice of the time
and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written
requests with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service
charges; and
WHEREAS, the Willdan Study was available for public inspection and review for
ten (10) days prior to the public hearing held on the date hereof; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the Fire Facilities Fee (hereafter “Fee”) is to provide a funding
source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development.
Such facilities, which are specifically described in the Willdan Study, include the
following: land acquisition and construction of two new fire stations, rolling stock and
equipment for two new stations, other associated vehicles and equipment,
administrative space, and improvements to existing facilities.
B. The fire facilities impact fee will fund facilities to serve new development. All
planned facilities will be located within the City of Dublin boundaries. The Fee collected
pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Facilities and fund the
outstanding financing obligations associated with constructing the City’s inventory of fire
protection facilities. The public facilities described in the study are hereinafter referred
as the “Facilities.”
C. After considering the Willdan Study, the Previous Studies, the testimony received
at this noticed public hearing, the Agenda statements, the General Plan, the SP, the
Station Location Study, the Station Prototype Study, the Building Code, the Eastern
Dublin EIR and Addenda, the Schaefer ElR, and all correspondence received (hereafter
“Record”), the City Council approves and adopts said Willdan Study and incorporates
such herein.
D. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within Eastern Dublin is
within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Addenda. The Facilities were identified
in the EIR as necessary to accommodate development in Eastern Dublin. The impacts
of such development, including the Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Program
level in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR there
have been no substantial changes in the projections of future development as identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances,
and no other new information of substantial importance so as to require imp ortant
revisions in the Eastern Dublin EIR’s analysis of impacts, mitigation measures, and
alternatives. Subsequent project-specific environmental review under CEQA of the
Facilities will be required before any such Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to
provide project specific environmental review of the Facilities at this stage, as they will
be implemented over a 30-year period and specific details as to their timing,
construction, and precise location are not presently known.
E. The adoption of the Fee as it relates to development within the area covered by
the Schaefer Project (“Schaefer Ranch Annexation Area”) is within the scope of the
Schaefer ElR. The Facilities were all identified in the Schaefer EIR as necessary to
accommodate development in Dublin. The impacts of such development, including the
Facilities, were adequately analyzed at a Project level in the Schaefer EIR Since the
certification of the Schaefer EIR there have been no substantial changes in the
projections of future development as identified in the Schaefer EIR, no substantial
changes in the surrounding circumstances, and no other new information of substantial
importance so as to require important revisions in the Schaefer EIR’s analysis of
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Subsequent project-specific
environmental review under CEQA of the Facilities will be required before any such
Facilities are approved. It is not feasible to provide project specific environmental review
of the Facilities at this stage, as they will be implemented over a 30 -year period and
specific details as to their timing, construction and precise location are not presently
known.
F. The adoption of the fee as it relates to development within the City of Dublin
(excluding Eastern Dublin and the Schaefer Annexation Area) is to obtain funds for
capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing service areas; that the
City currently provides fire protection and suppression services through a contractual
relationship with the Alameda County Fire Department, which operates from three fire
stations, that the Fee will be used to maintain current service levels; and that no existing
deficiencies have been found to exist . As such, the Fee as it relates to development
within the City (excluding Eastern Dublin and the Schaefer Ranch Annexation Area) is
not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code§ 21080(b)(8)(D)).
G. In adopting the Fee, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, § 7
of the California Constitution, Chapter 7.78 of the Dublin Municipal Code, and Chapter 5
of Division 1 of the Government Code, commencing with section 66000 (and section
66018, in particular) collectively and separately.
H. The Record establishes: 1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the Facilities and the impacts of the types of development for which the
corresponding fee is charged in that new development in the City of Dublin (hereafter to
include Eastern Dublin and the Schaefer Ranch Annexation Area), both residential and
non-residential, will generate persons who live, work, and/or shop in Dublin and who
generate or contribute to the need for the Facilities; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use (to pay for the
construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged
in that all development in the City of Dublin, both residential and non-residential,
generates or contributes to the need for the Facilities; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the
cost of the Facilities or portion thereof attributable to development in the City of Dublin
in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees generated
by specific types of land uses, the total costs of constructing the Facilities, and the
percentage by which development within the City of Dublin contributes to the need for
the Facilities. The total fee for a specific project is based on its size as measured by
dwelling units or building square feet and the fee schedule converts the estimated
service population that a development project will accommodate into a fee based on th e
size of the project. Larger projects of a certain land use type will have a higher service
population and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type.
4. That Fees set forth in the Willdan Study are intended to fund the outstanding
obligations to repay the City’s General Fund and other outstanding obligations for the
construction of Station 17 and Station 18, and the Fees expected to be generated by
future development will not exceed the projected outstanding obligations; and
5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair and
reasonable relationship to each development ’s burden on, and benefit from, the
Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of
residents or employees each particular d
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
1. Definitions.
a. “Commercial” shall mean all commercial, retail, education, and hotel/motel
development
b. “Developed” and “development” shall mean the construction or alteration
of or addition to, other than by the City, any building or structure within the City of
Dublin.
c. “Facilities” shall include those municipal public facilities as are described
in the Fire Station Location Report, Station Prototype Report, SP, Eastern Dublin
EIR and Addenda. “Facilities” shall also include comparable alternative facilities
should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate
construction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later
determines (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development
within the City of Dublin and the need for the alternative facilities (2) that the
alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the Study, and (3) that the
revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development ’s fair and
proportionate share of the alternative facilities.
d. “Industrial” shall mean all manufacturing and warehouse development.
e. “Mixed Development” shall mean a development that includes more than
one of the types of development defined in this Section l. Mixed developments
may combine residential types of development (Single Family and Multiple
Family), non-residential types of development (Commercial, Industrial, and
Office), or a combination of residential and non-residential types of development.
f. “Other Multifamily” shall mean all attached multi-family dwellings such as
duplexes, condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormitories.
These are units in structures containing two or more housing units. Second
dwelling units on single family lots are also included in the other multi-family land
use category.
g. “Office” shall mean all general, professional, and medical office
development.
h. “Senior Housing” Shall mean all age-restricted dwellings.
i “Senior Service Facilities” shall mean convalescent care facilities.
j. “Single Family and Townhomes” shall mean detached and attached
single-family dwellings, including townhomes. Detached single family homes are
one-unit structures detached from any other houses. Attached single family
homes (also known as townhomes or row houses) are one-unit structures that
have one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating them from
adjoining structures.
2. Administrative Guidelines.
The City Council adopted by Resolution 147-16 on September 6, 2016, the Dublin
Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines (the “Administrative Guidelines”) to
provide procedures for calculation, reimbursement, credit or deferred payment and
other administrative aspects of the Fee. Such guidelines shall include procedures for
construction of designated facilities by developers. The Administrative Guidelines are
incorporated herein by this reference, as they may be amended from time to time.
3. Fire Facilities Fee Imposed
a. The Fee shall be charged and paid for each Single Family, Multi Family,
and Senior Housing residential unit developed within the City of Dublin, including
each portion of such residential development within mixed development.
b. The Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential building or
structure, including commercial, industrial, office buildings, senior service
facilities and structures, developed within the City of Dublin, including each
portion of such non-residential development within mixed development.
c. Fees shall be paid at such time as set forth in the Administrative
Guidelines.
4. Reimbursement or Credit.
The amount of any reimbursement or credit shall be determined by use of the
calculations set forth in the Administrative Guidelines.
5. Amount of Fee.
a. The amount of the Fee for residential and non-residential development shall
be as set forth in the Willdan Study attached hereto and incorporated herein.
b. The amount of the Fee for mixed development shall be the sum of the
following, as applicable:
i. The applicable amount per-unit pursuant to Section 5(a) above, for each
Single Family, Multifamily, and Senior Housing development within a
mixed development.
ii. The applicable amount per 1,000 sq. ft. pursuant to Section 5(a) above,
for each commercial, office, industrial, or senior service facilities
development or portion of such development within a Mixed Development.
7. Exemptions from Fee.
The Fee shall not be imposed on any development qualifying for an exemption as set
forth in the Administrative Guidelines.
8. Use of Fee Revenues.
a. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in the Capital
Project Fund. Separate and special accounts within the Capital Project Fund
shall be used to account for such revenues, along with any interest earnings on
each account. The revenues (and interest) shall be used for the following
purposes:
i. To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisitions and
construction and/or acquisition of the Facilities and reasonable costs of
outside consultant studies related thereto;
ii. To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds
from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the
City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be
used for the Facilities.
iii. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Facilities
which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity; and
iv. To pay tor and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program.
b. Fees in these accounts shall be expended only for the Facilities and only for
the purpose for which the Fee was collected.
9. Standards.
The standards upon which the needs for the Facilities are based are the standards of
the City of Dublin, including the standards contained in the General Plan, the Station
Location Study, Station Prototype Study, the SP, Eastern Dublin ElR Addenda and the
Schaefer EIR.
10. Existing Deficiencies.
There are no existing deficiencies.
11. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City
Council, pursuant to Government Code section 66006, identifying the balan ce of
Fees in each account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code section 66002, the City Council shall also
review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the
approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for a ll
Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in
accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make
findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put
and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose
for which it is charged.
12. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee.
The Fee established herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance
on the Record identified above. The City will continue to conduct further study and
analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information
is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are
reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Dublin and within
areas included in the City’s General Plan. The City Council may revise the Fee to
incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the SP
and General Plan, as well as increases due to inflation and increased construction
costs.
14. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. In compliance with Government
Code section 66017, the Fee shall be effective sixty (60) days after the passage of this
resolution.
15. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any
individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable, the remaining component or provisions shall be and continue
to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that
has been judged to be invalid.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2017, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
2842265.1
1–17 City of Dublin General Plan | Background
We s t e r n E x t e n d e d P l a n n in g A r e a
A
L
A
M
E
D
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
O
S
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A L A M E D A C O U N T Y
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Pa rks Re ser ve Force s Tra in in g A re a
(Cam p Pa rks)
U.S. Depar tm e nt
of Justice
Cou nt y o f Alam e da
WE
ST
ER
N
EX
TENDED
PLAN NI N G AR EA
CI TY LIMI T A ND U RBAN LI MIT LIN E
S P H E R E O F IN FL U E N C E
PRIMA
RY
PLANNI
NG
A
REA
BOUN
DA
RY
EASTERN
EX TENDED PLANNING A REA BO UN DARY
CI
TY
LIMI
TS
AN
D
UR
BA
N
LIMIT
LINE
CITY
L
IMI
TS
AND
UR
BA
N
LIMIT
L
INE
CITY LIM ITS
C I T Y L I M I T S
EASTERN
EXTENDED
PLANNING
AREA BOUNDARY
EASTERN
EXTEN
DED PLANNING
AREA BOUNDARY
DUB LIN C ROSS IN G PLANNIN G AR EA BOUNDARY
AND
URB
AN
LIMI
T
L
IN
E
§¨¦580
S
a
n
R
a
m
o
n
R
o
a
d
D u b l i n B l v d
A m a d o r V a l l e y B l v d
Village Parkway
Dubli n B lvd
Central Pkwy
Gleason Drive
Ha
cienda Drive
Tass
aja
ra Road
G l e a s o n D r i v e
Fallon Road
Fallon
Road
Dubli n B lvd
Central Pkwy
Arnold
Road
§¨¦580
§¨¦680
æ
æ
k
k
(1 )
U
S
A
C i t y o f L i v e r m o r e
C i t y o f S a n R a m o n
C i t y o f P l e a s a n t o n
Airport Influence Area (AIA)/Overlay Zoning District
Airport Protection Area (APA)
Airport Safety Zone 6
Western Extended Planning Area Boundary
Primary Planning Area Boundary
Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary
Dublin Crossing Planning Area Boundary
City of Dublin
Sphere of Influence
City of Livermore
City of Pleasanton
City of San Ramon
D U B L I N G E N E R A L P L A N
K 0 10.5 Miles
L A N D U S E
(F i g u r e 1 -1 )
D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 6
Commercial/Industrial
General Commercial
Retail/Office
Retail/Office and Automotive
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial/Campus Office
Campus Office
Industrial Park
Business Park/Industrial
Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage
Medical Campus
Medical Campus / Comm ercial
Mixed Use
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office
Medium/High-Density Residential and Retail Office
Public/Semi-Public/Open Space
Regional Park
Parks/ Public Recreation
Open Space
Stream Corridor
Public Lands
Public / Semi-Public
Semi-Public
Specific Plan Districts
Downtown Dublin - Village Parkway District
Downtown Dublin - Transit-Oriented District
Downtown Dublin - Retail District
Dublin Crossing
Residential
Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 Unit per 100 Gross Residential Acres)
Estate Residential (0.01 - 0.8 du/ac)
Low-Density Single Family (0.5 - 3.8 du/ac)
Single Family Residential (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac)
Medium-Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 du/ac)
Medium/High-Density Residential (14.1 - 25.0 du/ac)
High-Density Residential (25.1+ du/ac)
The location of Semi-Public sites on the Chen,
and Croak properties of Fallon Village will be
determined at the time of the Stage 2 Development
Plan approval. The respective sizes of the sites will
be 2.5 net acres, and 2.0 net acres on the Chen and
Croak Properties.
50% of the units within the Medium Density land
use designation on the Croak and Jordan properties
shall have private, flat yards.
General Plan Land Use Map should be used in
combination with the General Plan and applicab le
Specific Plans that contain policies and
development standards for specific p lanning areas.
While the General Plan Land Use Map shows
existing development and layout, only the land use
designations for the land on which such
development exists are part of the General Plan.
(1) Underlying Land Use – Public / Sem i Public
(ORD. 09-15 and RESO. 166-15)
æ
k
FIRE FACILITIES IMPACT FEE STUDY
UPDATE
CITY OF DUBLIN
FINAL
JULY 19, 2017
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Lancaster, CA
Suite 430 Suite 110 Memphis, TN
Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Orlando, FL
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864) Phoenix, AZ
Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909) 587-3510 Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
www.willdan.com
i
This page intentionally left blank.
ii
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Fire Facilities Service Population 1
Land Use Types 2
Occupant Densities 3
City of Dublin Fire Facilities 4
Fire Facility Standards 6
Maximum Justified Fee Schedule 7
Outstanding Obligations 8
Planned Facility Standard 8
Recommended Fee Schedule 9
Program Implementation 10
Mitigation Fee Act Findings 10
iii
This page intentionally left blank.
1
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact
Fee Study
Willdan Financial Services was retained by the City of Dublin to complete an update of the City’s fire
facilities impact fee. This report is an update of Fire Facilities Impact Fee Update, completed by
MuniFinancial in April 2005 and adopted by the City Council.
Introduction
The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department for fire services. The City is
responsible for providing all necessary capital facilities. The City currently imposes an impact fee of
$870 per single-family dwelling unit, $544 per multi-family dwelling unit, $0.131 per square foot for
commercial, $0.254 per square foot for office, and $0.112 per square foot for industrial.
The City built Stations 17 and 18 with funding from impact fees, contributions from a developer and a
General Fund loan. Along with Station 16, these three stations and their associated vehicles and
equipment complete the City’s fire facility system. The system meets the needs of existing
development and future development through the projected buildout of the City.
This report revises the fire facilities impact fee to fund the outstanding obligation to repay the City’s
General Fund and other outstanding obligations for the construction of Station 17 and Station 18.
Development impact fees should be regularly updated to ensure sufficient funding of facilities to serve
growth. The revised impact fee presented in this report allocates to new development the appropriate
share of the fire facility system capital costs. Fee revenues will be used to repay loans used to
construct the fire facilities in advance of new development served by those stations.
Fire Facilities Service Population
The City serves both homes and businesses in its service area. Need for the City’s services a nd
associated facilities is measured by its service population, or the number of residents and workers
within its service area. Service population reasonably represents the need for fire facilities because
people requesting medical assistance generate most calls for service, rather than structure fires
requiring suppression. Hence, the demand for fire service is strongly correlated with the distribution of
residents and workers within the service area.
Table 1 shows the estimated number of residents and workers in Dublin, both in 2016 and at build
out. The current population estimate for the Dublin comes from the California Department of Finance
(DOF), increased by City data showing 258 single family units and 111 multifamily units built between
January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2016. This i ncrease in dwelling units is estimated to add 1,003
residents, using occupancy density factors in Table 2. The population projection for build out is
consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Workers are based on data provided by the California Employment Development Department (EDD).
The projected increase in employment is based on projections for Dublin from the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area (2013).
In calculating the service population, residents are given a weight of 1.0 and workers are weighted at
0.31 to reflect lower per capita service usage. The 0.31-weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-
hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree
to which nonresidential development yields a lesser demand for fire protection facilities.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
2
Table 1: Fire Facilities Impact Fee Service Population
A B A x B = C
Persons
Weighting
Factor
Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2016)54,749 1.00 54,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)20,251 1.00 20,300
Total (Buildout)75,000 75,000
Workers
Existing (2016)18,480 0.31 5,700
New Development (2016-Buildout)13,170 0.31 4,100
Total (Buildout)31,650 9,800
Combined
Existing (2016)60,400
New Development (2016-Buildout)24,400
Total (Buildout)84,800
Note: Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on the ratio of work hours to non-work hours in a
week (40/128). Totals have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
Sources: City of Dublin General Plan; Park and Recreation Master Plan (2015); California Department of
Finance, Table E-5, 2016; (CA DOF) California Employment Development Department, 1st Quarter, 2014
(CA EDD); Willdan Financial Services.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee,
growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types that impact fees
have been calculated for are defined below.
Single Family and Townhomes: Detached and attached single-family dwellings,
including townhomes. Detached single family homes are one -unit structures
detached from any other houses. Attached single family homes (also known as
townhomes or row houses) are one-unit structures that have one or more walls
extending from ground to roof separating them from adjoining structures.
Other Multi-family: All attached multi-family dwellings such as duplexes,
condominiums, plus mobile homes, apartments, and dormitories. These are units in
structures containing two or more housing units. Second dwelling units on single
family lots are also included in the other multi-family land use category
Senior Housing: All age-restricted dwellings.
Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and hotel/motel development.
Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Senior Service Facilities: Convalescent care facilities.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
3
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed use development
with both multi-family and commercial uses. In those cases, the fee would be calculated separately
for each land use type.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s
characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses
to reflect the impact characteristics of the use.
Occupant Densities
The fees in this report are calculated based on residential dwelling units or nonresidential building
square feet. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a
development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount
of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most
appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land
use type that most closely represents the probable occupant of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2. The residential
occupant density factors for both the various types of dwelling units were derived from the most
recently available data from US Census’ American Community Survey (ACS).
The ACS does not provide sufficient data to calculate the occupant density for senior dwelling units.
Instead of ACS data, this analysis relies on data from an Energy Star Benchmarking study for a
Senior Care Facility. That study estimated the total number of senior supportive units in the US and
the estimate number of residents in those units. The resulting occupancy density factor is shown in
Table 2.2.
The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment
Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by
The Natelson Company. Though not specific to Dublin, the Natelson study covered employment
density over a wide array of land use and deve lopment types, making it reasonable to apply these
factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as
defined by the Natelson study.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
4
Table 2: Occupancy Density Assumptions
Residential Dwelling Unit
Single Family 3.08 Persons per dwelling unit
Multi Family, Second Unit 1.88 Persons per dwelling unit
Senior Housing 1.12 Persons per dwelling unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.33 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 3.13 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Senior Service Facility 0.95 Employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
Sources: Tables B25024 and B25033, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary
Report, Table 6, p. 16-23, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments,
October 31, 2001; Commission on affordable housing and health facility needs for seniors in the
21st century, 2002; Energy Star Benchmarking For Senior Care Facility, 2010; Willdan Financial
Services.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities
The City’s inventory of fire facilities was used as the basis for calculating the City's facility standard.
This standard is used to determine new development's fair share obligation for expanded facilities as
growth occurs. The City’s fire protection facilities inventory described in this section currently serves
the entire City.
Table 3 displays the inventory and estimated value of the City’s fire protection vehicles, including the
firefighting, emergency medical, and communications equipment needed to stock each vehicle. In
total the City owns approximately $4.6 million worth of fire protection vehicles and apparatus.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
5
Table 3: Fire Equipment Inventory
Vehicle Type and Make Vehicle Equipment Total
Fire Station 16
Type I Engine 480,000$ 142,000$ 622,000$
Type I Engine 480,000 142,000 622,000
4X4 - Patrol 194,000 65,000 259,000
Total Fire Station 16 1,154,000$ 349,000$ 1,503,000$
Fire Station 17
Ladder Truck 751,000$ 194,000$ 945,000$
Type I Engine 480,000 142,000 622,000
Type III Engine 480,000 194,000 674,000
Total Fire Station 17 1,711,000$ 530,000$ 2,241,000$
Fire Station 181
Type I Engine 425,000$ 172,000$ 597,000$
Patrol 172,000 57,000 229,000
Total Fire Station 18 597,000$ 229,000$ 826,000$
Total All Vehicles & Equipment 3,462,000$ 1,108,000$ 4,570,000$
Sources: Fire Facilities Impact Fee Update, 2005; Consumer Price Index; Willdan Financial
Note: Valuation based on replacement value adjusted from 2004 to 2017 using the Consumer
Price Index. Represents increase of 29.4%.
Table 4 summarizes the City’s inventory of land and buildings. The land cost per acre is based on a
September 2016 appraisal specifically for use in this impact fee update . The building cost per square
foot represents replacement cost. Vehicle and equipment cost from Table 3 are shown for each
corresponding station. In total the City has invested $23.2 million in fire protection facilities.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
6
Table 4: Fire System Facilities
Unit Cost Total Cost
Fire Station 16:
Land1 1.00 acres 2,308,680$ 2,308,700$
Building 8,815 sq. ft.414 3,649,000
Vehicles & Equipment 2 1,503,000
Subtotal - Station 16 7,460,700$
Fire Station 17
Land1 0.89 2,308,680$ 2,054,700$
Building 12,814 414 5,305,000
Vehicles & Equipment 2 2,241,000
Subtotal - Station 17 9,600,700$
Fire Station 18
Land1 0.75 acres 2,308,680$ 1,731,500$
Building 8,670 414 3,589,000
Vehicles & Equipment 2 826,000
Subtotal - Station 18 6,146,500$
Total Value Fire System Facilities 23,207,900$
2 Vehicle and equipment replacement costs identified in Table 3.
Amount
1 Assumes $2,308,680 per acre based on medium density residential valuation from September
2016 appraisal by Associated Right of Way Services, prepared specifically for use in City of
Dublin impact fee updates.
Sources: Table 3; City of Dublin; Fire Facilities Impact Fee Update, 2005; Willdan Financial
Services.
Fire Facility Standards
Table 5 details the calculation of the system per capita standard. This approach is used because the
inventory of fire protection facilities is needed to serve both existing and future development. This
standard was also used in the prior Fire Facilities Fee Update from 2005. The standard per capita is
calculated by dividing cost of total cost of all fire protection facilities by the service population at
buildout. The value per capita is multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the
value per worker.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
7
Table 5: Fire Protection Facilities System Standard
Calculation
Value of Fire Protection Facilities A 23,207,900$
Less Outstanding General Fund Loan B (80,673)
Total Value - Fire Protection Facilities C = A - B 23,127,227$
Future Service Population (Buildout)D 84,800
Cost per Capita E = C / D 273$
Facility Standard per Resident E 273$
Facility Standard per Worker1 F = E x 0.31 85
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: City of Dublin; Tables 1 and 4.
Maximum Justified Fee Schedule
Table 6 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule , using the system standard
per capita. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling
unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of
nonresidential building space) from Table 2. The total fee includes a one percent (1%) percent
administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied for legal,
accounting, and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue
collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
8
Table 6: Fire Protection Facilities Fee - System Standard
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single Family 273$ 3.08 841$ 8$ 849$
Multi Family, Second Unit 273 1.88 513 5 518
Senior Housing 273 1.12 306 3 309
Nonresidential
Commercial 85$ 2.33 198$ 2$ 200$ 0.20$
Office 85 3.13 266 3 269 0.27
Industrial 85 1.16 99 1 100 0.10
Senior Service Facility 85 0.95 81 1 82 0.08
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2 and 5.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee
program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public
reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Outstanding Obligations
While the maximum justified fees documented above represent new development’s fair share of the
inventory of fire facilities, fees set at this level will generate more than enough revenue to fully fund
the outstanding obligations used to construct those fire fa cilities. As such, the following tables will
calculate the level of fees needed to recover the outstanding obligations
Table 7 summarizes the outstanding obligations, including fire facilities fee credits, and the remainder
of the General Fund loan. In total there are approximately $2.7 million in outstanding fire facilities
funding obligations.
Table 7: Outstanding Obligations
Fire Facilities Credits 2,583,342$
Fire Impact Fee General Fund Loan Remainder 80,673
Total Obligation 2,664,015$
Source: City of Dublin.
Planned Facility Standard
While the maximum justified fees can be calculated using the system standard, t he recommended fire
facilities impact fees calculated in this report are based on a planned facilities standard approach.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
9
The planned facilities standard approach calculates a per capita standard such that new development
will fully fund the outstanding obligations. This standard is less than new development ’s fair share
standard, as identified in Table 6, above. The standard per capita is calculated in Table 8 by dividing
the value of the outstanding obligations by the increase in service population. The value per capita is
multiplied by the worker-weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker.
Calculation
Value of Outstanding Obligations A 2,664,015$
Service Population Growth (2016 to Buildout)B 24,400
Cost per Capita C = A / B 109$
Facility Standard per Resident C 109$
Facility Standard per Worker1 D = C x 0.31 34
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: City of Dublin; Tables 1 and 7.
Table 8: Fire Protection Facilities Per Capita Obligation
Recommended Fee Schedule
Table 9 shows the recommended fire protection facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita from
Table 8 is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment
densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building
space) from Table 2. The total fee includes a one percent (1%) percent administrative charge to fund
costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied for legal, accounting, and administrative
support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost
accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, one percent of the base fee adequately covers the
cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge is not an impact fee; rather, it is a user
fee. It should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to en sure that
revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs
associated with the fee program.
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
10
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.01 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential
Single Family 109$ 3.08 336$ 3$ 339$
Multi Family, Second Unit 109 1.88 205 2 207
Senior Housing 109 1.12 122 1 123
Nonresidential
Commercial 34$ 2.33 79$ 1$ 80$ 0.08$
Office 34 3.13 106 1 107 0.11
Industrial 34 1.16 39 0 39 0.04
Senior Service Facility 34 0.95 32 0 32 0.03
1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2 and 8.
2 Administrative charge of 1.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee
program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public
reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Table 9: Recommended Fire Protection Facilities Fee
Program Implementation
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section
66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures
including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s le gal counsel should be consulted for any other
procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a
resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
To guide the widespread imposition of development impact fees, the State Legislature adopted the
Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1988 and subsequent amendments. The Act
is contained in California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and establishes requirements for
the imposition and administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1988 and
requires local governments to document the five findings explained in the sections below when
adopting an impact fee. The Mitigation Fee Act findings are summarized here and supported in detail
by the report that precedes this section. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
For the first finding the City must:
Identify the purpose of the fee. (§66001(a)(1))
The purpose of the City of Dublin fire facilities impact fee is to provide a funding source from new
development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fee advances a legitimate
interest of the City by assuring that new development within the City is provided with adequate fire
protection facilities and services.
Use of Fee Revenues
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
11
For the second finding the City must:
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public
facilities for which the fee is charged. (§66001(a)(2))
The fire facilities impact fee will fund facilities to serve new development. All planned facilities will be
located within the City of Dublin boundaries. In this case the fee will fund the outstanding financing
obligations associated with constructing the City’s inventory of fire protection facilities.
Benefit Relationship
For the third finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(3))
The City will restrict fee revenues to funding the outstanding obligations related to fire protection
facilities that will serve new development and the additional resid ents and workers associated with
that new development as part of a City-wide network of fire protection facilities and services. Thus,
there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and
nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee.
Burden Relationship
For the fourth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(4))
Service population provides an indicator of the demand for the facilities needed to accommodate
growth. Service population is calculated based on residents associated with residential development
and employment associated with nonresidential development. To calculate a single per capita
standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative demand
for fire facilities by land use type.
The need for the fee is based on the facility standards identified in this repor t and the growth in City-
wide service population projected through buildout. Facilities standards represent the level of service
that the City plans to provide its residents and businesses at buildout. Standards are based on the
City’s total existing and planned facilities allocated across the City’s total service population at
buildout.
See the Fire Facilities Service Population section, for a description of how service population and
growth projections are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Fire Facility Standards
section.
Proportionality
For the fifth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is
imposed. (§66001(b))
This reasonable relationship between the fire facility impact fee for a specific development project and
the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated size of th e service
population that the project will accommodate. The total fee for a specific project is based on its size
as measured by dwelling units or building square feet. The fee schedule converts the estimated
service population that a development project will accommodate into a fee based on the size of the
project. Larger projects of a certain land use type will have a higher service population and pay a
higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a
City of Dublin Fire Facilities Impact Fee Report
12
reasonable relationship between the public facility fee for a specific development project and the cost
of the facilities attributable to that project.
See the Fee Schedule section for a description of how service population is determined for different
types of land uses. The Fee Schedule section also presents the fire facilities impact fee schedule.