HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 246-060~City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
16
TO:HONORABLE CITY CO~CIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNq_NG AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JUNE 5, 2006 CMR: 246:06
SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF A PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66477 ("QU1MBY ACT") AND AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER
16.58 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS, COMMUNITY
CENTERS AND LIBRARIES) TO EXEMPT DEVELOPMENTS THAT
ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED PARKLAND DEDICATION
ORDINANCE FEES FROM ADDITIONAL PARK IMPACT FEES
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City
Council adopt an ordinance for the new Parkland Dedication Ordinance and to amend the current
park impact fees, PAMC Chapter 16.58, to exempt projects that are subject to the proposed
parkland dedication ordinance fees as shown in Attachment A.
DISCUSSION
City Council colleague’s memo, dated January 23, 2006, directed staff to develop a draft
parkland dedication ordinance pursuant to the Quimby Act, to provide the City a mechanism to
collect fees for improving park facilities and/or require land dedication for new public parks
(Attachment B).
If Council adopts the proposed parkland dedication ordinance, staff also recommends an
amendment to the existing park impact fee to exempt projects, or portions of projects, that would
be subject to the parkland dedication ordinance. The proposed park impact fee amendment would
provide an exemption for residential portions of a subdivision. For example, for a mixed-use
subdivision, the non-residential area would be subject to park impact fees and the residential
portion would be subject to the parkland dedication ordinance. The purpose of the proposed park
impact fee amendment is to ensure that projects will not be subject to paying double fees; all
projects will be subject to either the park impact fee or the park dedication ordinance, as
appropriate. A new nexus study will need to be prepared for the Park Impact Fee.
CMR: 246:06 Page 1 of 4
Parkland Dedication Assessment
In response to Planning and Transportation Commission inupt, staff has further refined the
parkland dedication fee calculation since the Commission meeting. Based on the existing acreage
of Neighborhood and District Parks (174 acres) in Palo Alto and the 2000 census population
(58,598 residents) for the City, the ratio of 3 acres/I,000 residents was calculated as the standard
to use to determine the fees and parkland dedication. The information below provides the
breakdown of how the parkland dedication assessments would be calculated.
A B C D
Unit Type Residents/Unit Parkland Standard Area Requirement
(2000 census data)(3 Acres/1000 Residents)Per Unit Type
(BxC)
Single-Family 2.44 0.003 Acre/Person 0.0073
Multi-Family 1.68 0.003 Acre/Person 0.0050
Every residential subdivision would be subject to either fees or parkland dedication, or a
combination thereof.
Fees ($)
(D) x (Number of Residential Units in Subdivision) x (S/Acre for Land at Current Market Value)
Example: 15 multi-family units: (0.0050) x (15) x ($3.268 million/acre*) - $245,100
($16,340/unit)
By comparison, current park impact fees for the same project would be $83,310 ($5,554/unit).
parklandDedication (acres)
(D) x Number of Residential Units in Subdivision
Example: 15 multi-family units: (0.0050) x (15) - 0.075 acres (3,267 s.f.)
*Estimated land cost of $3.268 million per acre provided by Administrative Services
Department. This value would be determined by an appraisal at the time the project is assessed.
Alternatives
In addition to the neighborhood and district parks, the City also provides a large amount of
recreational open space to its residents. When this open space is included in the parkland
dedication assessment, the acreage per resident is well above five, the maximum acreage that
may be required for dedication under the Quimby Act.
CMR: 246:06 Page 2 of 4
One alternative to using the 3 acres/I,000 ratio is to utilize the maximum 5 acres/i,000 ratio as
allowed under the Quimby Act. If this number were used, the requirements would be as follows:
A B C D
Unit Type Residents/Unit Parkland Standard Area Requirement
(2000 census data)(5 Acres/1000 Residents)Per Unit Type
(BxC)
Single-Family 2.44 0.005 Acre/Person 0.00122
Multi-Family 1.68 0.005 Acre/Person 0.0084
Using the 5 acres/i,000 residents ratio, the sample project above would pay $411,768 in
parkland fees, or $27,451 per unit.
The following table shows the net increase in park impact fees from the two alternatives:
Parkland Proposed Quimby Park Impact Fee Net new fees
Standard Act Fees (per unit)Exemption per unit
5 acres ! resident $27,451 ($5,554)$21,897
3 acres / resident $16,340 ($5,554)$10,917
*based on estimated land value of $3.268 million per acre. Actual land costs are determined when the fee is
assessed, and could be higher or lower.
Attachment H shows the total development fees applicable to multi-family and single-family
subdivisions, and how this ordinance would impact that total.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The proposed adoption of a parkland dedication ordinance and amendment to the existing park
impact fees was reviewed by the Commission on May 10, 2006 and there was unanimous
support for the recommendation of approval (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent) without
any sig-nificant discussion; there were no members of the public present to speak to this item at
the public hearings.
The May 10, 2006 Commission staff report and meeting minutes are attached for background
information (Attachments F & G).
CMR: 246:06 Page 3 of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Comprehensive Plan Environmental impact report provides sufficient environmental
analysis for the adoption of the parkland dedication ordinance. The proposed ordinance is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies assessed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. As
new parkland is proposed, a site specific environmental analysis will be completed at that time to
determine impacts from park creation.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CLARE CAMPBELL
Planner
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Co!ram.unity Environment
~--/\
E~Y ~ISON
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
No
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Ordinance
Colleague’s Memo, January 23, 2006
City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes, January 23, 2006
Quimby Act
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, May 10, 2006 (w/o attachments)
Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes, May 10, 2006
Comparison Table of Impact Fees with Other Cities
COURTESY COPIES: "
Amy L Glad, Home Builders Association
Chris Draper, Silicon Valley Realtors
CMR: 246:06 Page 4 of 4
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 21.50 [PARK LAND DEDICATION
OR FEES IN LIEU THEREOF]TO TITLE 21
[SUBDIVISIONS AND OTHER DIVISIONS OF LAND]AND
AMENDING SECTION 16.58.030 [EXEMPTIONS]OF
CHAPTER 16.58 [DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR
PARKS, COMMUNITY CENTERS AND LIBRARIES]
The council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Chapter 21.50 is added to Title 21 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, to read as follows:
’~CHAPTER 21.50
PARK LAND DEDICATION OR FEES IN LIEU THEREOF.
Sections:
21 50 i0
21 50 20
21 50 30
21 50 40
21 50 50
21 50 60
21 50 70
21 50 80
21 50 90
21 50 i00
21 50 ii0
Findings and purpose
Definitions
Requirements for residential subdivisions
Land requirement
Density Formula
Procedure
Calculation of fair market value
Calculation of requirement
Commencement of development
Credit for private open space
Exclusions
21.50.010 Findings and purpose.
The City council hereby finds that development of
residential subdivisions has a significant effect on the use and
availability of park and recreation space and facilities, and
that the limited open space and recreation amenities provided by
these residential developments are insufficient to meet the
needs of the residents for open space and recreational
facilities. The intent of this chapter is to require that such
developments contribute their fair share toward the purchase,
development, and/or improvement of park and recreational
060517 syn 0120120
NOT YET APPROVED
facilities. The provisions of this chapter are enacted pursuant
to the Palo Alto City Charter and the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan as well as Section 66477 and 66479 of the Government Code
of the State of California, as may be applicable.
21.50.020 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
"District Park" shall include, but is not limited to, a
park that serves large areas of the City and contains a broad
variety of facilities.
"Neighborhood Park" shall include, but is not limited
to, a park of roughly two to i0 acres in size, intended to meet
the recreation needs of people living or working within a one-
half mile radius.
"Subdivision" shall mean the same as d@fined in Sec.
66424 of the California Government Code.
"Subdivider" shall mean a person, firm, corporation,
partnership or association who proposes to divide, divides or
causes to be divided real property into a subdivision.
"Subdivision map" shall mean any map filed pursuant to
any proceedings for subdivision as defined in Title 21 of Paio
Alto Municipal Code.
21.50.030 Requirements for residential subdivisions.
As a condition of approval of any final subdivision map,
the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof,
or both, at the option of the city, for park or recreational
purposes according to the following standards:
(a) Dedication of sites.Where a park or
recreational facility has been designated in the Community
Services and Facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan or a
Coordinated Area Plan, and the park or facility is to be !ocated
in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision, to serve
the immediate and future needs of the residents of the
subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to dedicate land
for park and recreational facilities sufficient in size to serve
the residents of the subdivision area. The park land to be so
dedicated shall conform to locations and standards set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan or a Coordinated Area Plan, if
060517 syn 0120120
NOT YET APPROVED
applicable. The slope, topography and geology of the site, as
well as its surroundings, must be suitable for the intended park
or recreation purpose. The amount of land to be provided shall
be determined pursuant to the standards set forth in 21.50.040
through 21.50.050 of this chapter establishing the formula for
land dedication or for payment of fees in lieu thereof.
(b) Fees in lieu of land dedication. If there is no
park or recreational facility designated or required in whole or
in part within a proposed subdivision which meets the
requirements set forth herein, the subdivider shall be required
to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication equal to the value of
the land as determined by 21.50.070 through 21.50.080 of this
chapter.
A fee in lieu of land dedication hereunder shall be
required when:
(i) a subdivider is subdividing land on which no park
is shown or proposed in the Comprehensive Plan or a Coordinated
Area Plan; or
(2) when dedication is impossible, impractical, or
undesirable as determined by Director of Planning and Community
Environment or City Council as appropriate; or
(3) when the proposed subdivision contains fifty (50)
parcels of land or less.
(c) Dedication and fees required. In certain
subdivisions in excess of fifty (50) parcels of land, a
combination of land-dedication and fee payment may be required.
These shall be subdivisions in which:
(!) only a portion of the land to be subdivided is
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan or a Coordinated Area Plan as
the !ocation for a park or recreational facility, in which case
that land, or a portion thereof within the subdivision, shall be
dedicated for park purposes, and a fee shall then be required in
lieu of any additional land that would have been required to be
dedicated under this chapter; or
(2) a major part of the park or recreation site
falling within the subdivision has already been acquired, and
only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivider to
complete the park or recreation site, in which case the land
needed shall be required for dedication, and a fee shall then be
060517 syn 0120120
3
NOT YET APPROVED
required in lieu of the additional land that would have been
required to be dedicated under this chapter.
(d) Use of and basis for in-lieu fees. The fees
collected pursuant to this chapter are to be used only for the
purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve
the subdivision from which fees are collected in accordance with
the service area requirements as shown in Table i. Fees so
collected shal! be used to purchase land, buy equipment,
construct improvements or rehabilitate a proposed or existing
neighborhood park, district park, publicly owned conservation
land, recreational open space, recreational facility, community
gardening facility or combination thereof serving said
subdivision. The fee so required shall be based on the fair
market value of the land that otherwise would have been required
for dedication.
Table 1
PARK SERVICE AREA AND SIZE
PARK TYPE SERVICE AREA DESIRABLE SIZE
Mini Park 0 to 1/2 Mile 1/2 to 2 Acres
Neighborhood Park 1/2 Mile 2 to !0 Acres
District Park Entire City 15 to 50 Acres
Publicly Owned Conservation Entire City N/A
Land/Recreational Open Space
21.50.040 Land requirement.
In accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,-it
is hereby found and determined that the City of Palo Alto
currently provides neighborhood and district park and
recreational facilities to its residents at a ratio of three ¢3)
acres per thousand residents. The public interest, convenience,
health, welfare and safety require that three (3) acres of
property for each one thousand (i,000) persons residing within
the City of Palo Alto be devoted to public park and recreational
facilities.
21.50.050 Density formula.
In calculating dedication and in-lieu fee requirements
under this chapter, the following table, derived from the
density assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan, shall apply:
060517 syn 0120120
4
NOT YET APPROVED
Table 2
DENSITY FORMULA
Density of Acreage Requirement
Dwelling Density Persons Per Per Dwelling Unit
Dwelling Unit within Subdivision
Single Family 2.44 .0122
Multi Family 1.68 .0084
21.50.060 Procedure.
The Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and
Community Environment or City Council as appropriate, shall,
upon approving a subdivision map, determine the conditions
necessary to comply with the requirements for parkland
dedication or fees in lieu thereof as set forth in this chapter,
and said conditions shall be attached as conditions of approval.
21.50.070 Calculation of fair market value.
At the time of submission a final subdivision map for
approval, the city shall, in those cases where a fee in lieu of
dedication is required either in whole or in part, determine the
fair market value of the land in the proposed residential
development, and this determination shall be used in calculating
the fee to be paid. If the developer objects to the fair market
value, the city, at developer’s expense, shall obtain an
appraisal of the property by a qualified independent real estate
appraiser, agreed to by the city and the developer, and the
value established by said appraiser using standard recogni.zed
appraisal techniques to establish fair market value will be
accepted as the fair market value of the land in the proposed
development. Alternatively, the city and the developer may
agree as to the fair market value.
21.50.080 Calculation of requirement.
For the purpose of the formula established by this
section, the following definition shall apply:
A equals the park land dedication acreage required per
dwelling unit within the proposed residential development for
park and recreationa! facilities as set forth herein and in
section 21.50.040 of this chapter.
060517 syn 0120120
5
NOT YET APPROVED
B equals the number of new dwelling units in the
proposed residential development.
C equals the fair market value per acre of land in the
proposed residential development.
F equals the in-lieu fee required.
L equals the land required for dedication.
The following formula shal! be used in calculating the
land required for the dedication under this chapter:
A x B = L
The following formula shall be used in calculating the
in-lieu fees required to be paid under this chapter:
A x B x C = F
21.50.090 Commencement of development.
Any fees collected for these purposes shall be committed
within five years after payment of such fees or issuance of
building permits on one-half of the units of the residential
deve!opment, whichever occurs later.
21.50.100 Credit for private open space.
Where private open space is provided in a proposed
residential development, and where the developer has submitted a
written request .at -the time of the submittal of the planning
applications pursuant to subsection (b), below, for a credit
against the amount of park land dedication or the amount of the
in-lieu fee thereof, a maximum credit of fifty percent (50%) of
the value of the land devoted to private open space that is
eligible for credit may be given against the requirement of land
dedication or fees in lieu thereof required by this chapter, if
the Director of Planning and Community Environment or City
Council, as appropriate to the application, finds that it
complies with this section and that it is in the public interest
to do so.
(a) Standards.
(I) Yards, court areas, setbacks, decorative
landscape areas required with residential site design required
060517 syn 0120120
NOT YET APPROVED
to be maintained by a coordinated area plan, zoning and building
ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the
computation of such private open space.
(2) The private open space shall be devoted to active
recreational uses, and shall be wholly or partially owned and
maintained by the future residents of the development. The
private ownership and maintenance of the open space shall be
restricted for said use by recorded written agreement,
conveyance or restrictions subject to the review and approval of
the City Attorney.
(3) The space shall be reasonably adapted for use for
recreational purpose, taking into consideration such factors as
size, shape, topography, geology, access and location, and the
deve!oper must propose and agree, to design and construct the
necessary recreational and park facilities and improvements
associated with each element of the private open space set forth
below; said facilities and improvements shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of an occupancy certificate for the units
that are receiving the credit.
(4) Facilities proposed for the open space shall be
in substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
(5) The shape and location of the open space shall
provide greatest utility possible to the greatest number of
residents of the development for which credit is sought. If
limited access recreation areas are proposed, their credit value
can only be applied against the park fee obligation generated by
those residents with access to the said recreation area.
(6) The combined minimum acreage for a facility is
one (i.0) acre and shall be a single, contiguous unit of land.
Irregularly shaped pieces of property of less than optimum
utility or burdened by topographic considerations that render
them unsuitable for active recreational uses shall not be
eligible for credit.
(b) Process.
(!) The developer, as part of the application for a
development application, shall include the location of any open
space for which credit is sought as part of the application
plans and drawings.
060517 syn 0120120
7
NOT YET APPROVED
(2) Before credit is given, the community development
director, or designee, shall make written findings that the
above standards are met.
(3) The timing for the credit determination depends
on the type of permits and entitlements sought. Upon their
request, the developer(s) will be advised as part of the
application process as to when the determination will be made.
21.50.110 Exclusions.
This Chapter shall not apply to the following
subdivisions:
(a)Commercial or industrial subdivisions.
(b)Nonresidentia! condominium units.
c)
d)
(e)
Projects or stock cooperatives which consist of
the subdivision of air space in an existing
apartment building which is more then five years
old when no new dwelling units are added.
Parcel maps for a subdivision containing less
than five parcels and not used for residential
purposes
A project with a maximum of two dwelling units
that exist on a property if, at the time the
subdivision is approved, the existing units are
to remain on the property
SECTION 2. Subsection (g) of Section 16.58.030 of
Chapter 16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
16.58.030 Exemptions.
(g) Any residential subdivision for which land
dedication or fees in lieu thereof are required pursuant to
Chapter 21.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional such decision shall not affect the validity of
the other remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Counci!
hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and
060517 syn 0120120
NOT YET APPROVED
each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
unconstitutiona!.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the changes
effected by this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15061
of CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. The ordinance shall be effective on the
commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
060517 syn 0120120
Attachment B
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
6
City Council
Vice Mayor Judy Kleinberg, and Council Members Yoriko Kishimoto and Dena
Mossar
Janua~ 23,2006
QUIMBY ACT ORDINANCE
At the present time the City of Palo Alto does not have a parkland dedication
ordinance as allowed by State law, commonly referred to as the Quimby Act.
While the Park and Community Facilities Fees, enacted in 2002, does allocate a
percentage toward parkland acquisition, it is far from fully recovering the cost of
land needed to meet Palo Alto’s growing needs for parks.
The Quimby Act enables California cities to maintain its park acreage per capita
as its population changes. The Act requires subdividers to set aside a portion of
their projects for public park purposes. The Act also provides the payment of in-
lieu fees if the project’s required acreage is too small to provide meaningful
recreation. Fees from other projects can be accumulated enabling the City to
purchase additional parkland in a location of greatest need.
Given the current economic conditions where residential land values have out
stripped commercial office, retail and industrial uses, we are seeing the potential
for many more residential units. Increased housing, while easing the City’s
significant housing, jobs. imbalance, will also produce more demand on the City’s
park needs. Keeping pace with the ratio of parkland per capita, through the
avenues afforded by State law is an opportunity for our residents to continue to
access park and recreational activities.
This colleague’s memo requests that Staff return with a draft parkland dedication
ordinance as provided for under State law no later than 5 months. Staff should
also evaluate and recommend the possible adjustments of other fees such as the
current Park and Community Facilities fee to ensure that Palo Alto’s fee structure
remains competitive and is economically feasible.
ATTACHMENT C
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification of whether the motion, if
passed, was Council’s approval of the item or Council’s approval to move
forward with the item.
Mr. Baum said Council’s approval of the motion would direct staff to return
with language to place the item on the November 2007 ballot. It would
require a 50 percent plus one vote unless designated as a special tax, which
increased the requirement to 66 percent.
Council Member Mossar opposed to the motion. She felt it was precipitous to
expect voter approval when there were potentially other items on the
November 2007 ballot.
Council Member Barton agreed the timing was wrong to move forward with
placing the item on the ballot. Studying the idea of increasing the TOT made
better sense.
Council Member Beecham concurred with the comments of Council Members
Mossar and Barton.
Council Member Morton encouraged his colleagues to think the matter
through before deciding to place it on the November 2007 ballot. He was
opposed to the motion.
Council Member Klein said he was not worried about having the TOT on the
November 2007 ballot when there may or may not be the bond issue. He
believed it was advantageous to show the community there was a
comprehensive infrastructure plan.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION-FAILED 3-6, Cordell, Drekmeier, Klein yes.
Council Member Beecham expressed support for the original motion. There
was plenty of time between now and the November 2007 ballot. ]:t was
important to conduct outreach to the business community to ask their
support or solicit information.
Mayor Kleinberg concurred with the comments of Council Member Beecham.
~IOTION PASSED 9-0.
RECESS:9:20 to 9:27 p.m.
COUNCIL MATTERS
6.Colleagues Memo from Mayor Kleinberg and Vice Mayor Kishimoto re
Quimby Act Regarding Adoption of Park Fees
01/23/2006 13
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kishimoto, to direct
Staff to return with a draft parkland dedication ordinance, as provided for
under State law, no later than five months. Staff should also evaluate and
recommend the possible adjustments of other fees, such as the current Park
and Community Facilities fee to ensure that Palo Alto’s fee structure remains
competitive and is economically feasible.
Council Member Mossar said she was keenly aware of the need for funds for
park acquisition and hoped approval of the Quimby Act was an effective
vehicle for the Council to pursue.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said the park fee previously put in place was
inadequate to help maintain Palo Alto’s quality of life. She supported moving
forward with the motion.
Mayor Kleinberg concurred with the comments of Council Member lVlossar
and Vice Mayor Kishimoto. The Quimby Act was something that would be
used in the future for new parkland and/or in lieu fees, and would add to the
City’s ability to help increase the expected residential density.
Council Member Barton asked whether the item was a fee or tax that
required voter approval.
City Attorney Gary Baum said it was a fee that could be adopted by the
Council. It would require staff to prepare an ordinance. He believed a nexus
study was needed in order to adjust the park fee.
Council Member Barton said it would be helpful to know how the park fee
might affect affordable housing issues, especially for developers who desired
to target their project to minimize fees.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie
City’s impact fees provided an exception for affordable housing,
same analysis would be done in recommending the park in lieu fee.
said the
and the
Mayor Kleinberg referred the Council to the last paragraph of the Colleagues
Memo, which recommended staff return with adjustments to other fees to
ensure Palo Alto’s fee structure remained competitive and economically
feasible.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, expressed support for the motion. While he
agreed a nexus study would identify the costs incurred in parkland for new
housing, he had not heard the amount incurred in capital costs for libraries,
other community facilities, police, fire and related services as a result of new
housing. He encouraged the nexus study would identify those numbers as
part of the process.
01/23/2006 14
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation Regarding Council
Review of Responses to Audit Report Recommendations on
Restructuring Efforts and Management Span of Control
City Auditor Sharon Erickson said the purpose of the City Auditor’s Audit of
Restructuring Efforts and Management Span of Control was to: 1) conduct
an independent review of General Fund and Internal Fund staffing changes
and restructuring over the two years prior to April 2004; 2) to access the
feasibility of additional reductions through attrition; 3) to evaluate
supervisory span of control and the ratio of managers to line staff, as well
the number of levels of management review; and 4) to review the job duties
of managers and supervisors with four or fewer direct reports. Staff’s report
included a total of 17 recommendations to improve controls over staffing
and to actively manage the City’s organizational structure. The Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) required the Auditor’s Office to prepare a status
report on open audit recommendations, which was heard by both the Policy
and Services (P&S) and Finance Committees. The P&S Committee
recommended staff return to the full Council with Restructuring Efforts and
Management Span of Control, Items 2, 3 and 5. The Auditor’s Office
recommendation for Item 2 was due to a concern that although the City had
reduced the number of employees to control personnel costs, additional
reductions might be necessary. As of September 2005, staff reported an
ongoing pursuit for restructuring recognizing that safety function, risk levels
and appropriate levels of authority were different throughout the City
organization. Staff further stated during the upcoming budget process, each
department would be asked to review their departmental organizational
charts and business operations, analyze short- medium and long term
opportunities to expand the span of control, and reduce layers of
management through restructuring. The recommendation for Item 3 was
made with the goal of reducing costs, but also to enhance organizational
efficiency and effectiveness. Appropriate ratios would depend on the specific
circumstances of each department and workgroup. Staff indicated guidelines
would be established to review spans on a regular basis, including an
ongoing review and updating of departmental organization charts, showing
reporting relationships, and the review of organizational charts would be
incorporated into the 2006-07 budget process and when staff was replaced.
The recommendation for Item 5 was made to flatten the organization and in
order to reduce costs, and enhance organizational efficiency and
effectiveness.
City Manager Frank Benest said the key follow-up activity was that staff
would conduct, as part of the mid-year and budget review for the coming
year, a review with all departments of how to further streamline as they
moved forward.
01/23/2006 15
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66477
Attachment D
"Quimby Act"
66477. (a) The legislative body of a city or county may, by
ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of
the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for
park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a
tentative map or parcel map, if a!l of the following requirements are
met:
(11 The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior
to the filing of the tentative map of the subdivision or parcel map.
(2) The ordinance includes definite standards for determining the
proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee
to be paid in lieu thereof. The amount of land dedicated or fees
paid shal! be based upon the residential density, which shall be
determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved
tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per
household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average
number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same
as that disclosed by the most recent available federa! census or a
census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200)
of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. However, the dedication of land,
or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate
amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000
persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless
the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area, as
calculated pursuant to this subdivision, exc@eds that limit, in which
case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a
higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing
within a subdivision subject to this section.
(A) The park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city,
county, or !ocal pub!ic agency shall be derived from the ratio that
the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the
total population of the city, county, or local public agency as shown
in the most recent available federa! census. The amount of
neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage
of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city, county, or
local public agency as shown on its records, plans, recreational
element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available
federal census.
(B) For cities incorporated after the date of the most recent
available federa! census, the park area per 1,000 members of the
population of the city shall be derived from the ratio that the
amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shown on the
records, maps, or reports of the county in which the newly
incorporated city is located bears to the total population of the new
city as determined pursuant to Section 11005 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code. In making any subsequent calculations pursuant to
this section, the county in which the newly incorporated city is
located shall not include the figures pertaining to the new city
which were calculated pursuant to this paragraph. Fees shall be
Page I of 3
payable at the time of the recording of the final map or parcel map
or at a later time as may be prescribed by loca! ordinance.
(3) The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for
the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing
neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve
the subdivision.
(4) The legislative body has adopted a genera! plan or specific
plan containing policies and-standards for parks and recreation
facilities, and the park and recreational facilities are in
accordance with definite principles and standards.
(5) The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to
be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park
and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the
subdivision.
(6) The city, county, or other local public agency to which the
land or fees are conveyed or paid shall deve!op a schedule specifying
how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to
develop park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the
subdivision. Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be
committed within five years after the payment of the fees or the
issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the
subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed,
they, without any deductions, shall be distributed and paid to the
then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the
size of their lot bears to the total area of al! lots within the
subdivision.
(7) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions
containing 50 parcels or less, except that when a condominium
project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project, as those
terms are defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code, exceeds 50
dwelling units, dedication of land may be required notwithstanding
that the number of parcels may be less than 50.
(8) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used
for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of
this section. However, in that event, a condition may be placed on
the approval of a parcel map that if a building permit is requested
for construction of a residentia! structure or structures on one or
more of the parcels mithin four years, the fee may be required to be
paid by the owner of each parce! as a condition of the issuance of
the permit.
(9) If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements
to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with
any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment
of fees or dedication of land required by the ordinance.
(b) Land or fees required under this section shall be conveyed or
paid directly to the !ocal public agency which provides park and
recreational services on a communitywide leve! and to the area within
which the proposed development will be located, if that agency
elects to accept the land or fee. The local agency accepting the
land or funds shall develop the land or use the funds in the manner
provided in this section.
(c) If park and recreational services and facilities are provided
by a public agency other than a city or a county, the amount and
location of land to be dedicated or fees to be paid sha!l, subject to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), be jointly determined by the city
or county having jurisdiction and that other public agency.
(d) This section does not apply to commercial or industrial
Page 2 of 3
subdivisions or to condominium projects or stock cooperatives that
consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment
building that is more than five years old when no new dwelling units
are added.
(e) Common interest developments, as defined in Section 1351 of
the Civil Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined
by the legislative body, against the amount of land required to be
dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this
section, for the value of private open space within the development
which is usable for active recreational uses.
(f) Park and recreation purposes shall include land and facilities
for the activity of "recreational community gardening," which
activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in
addition to, the owner of the land, of plant material not for sale.
(g) This section shall be kno~ and may be cited as the Quimby
Act.
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs support the implementation of the
Parkland Dedication Ordinance:
PROGRAM C-23:
Study and recommend methods of private and public financing for improved park maintenance,
rehabilitation, and construction.
POLICY C-27:
Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the growing needs of
residents and employees of Palo Alto.
PROGRAM C-26:
]n conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or other public
gathering places that meet neighborhood needs.
POLICY C-28:
Use National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for locating and
developing new parks. These guidelines are as follows:
¯Neighborhood parks should be at least two acres in size, although sites as small as one-half
acre may be needed as supplementary facilities. The maximum service area radius should be
one-half mile. Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000
people.._
¯District parks should be at least five acres in size. The maximum service area radius should
be one mile. Two acres of district park land should be provided for each 1,000 people.
A park should be provided within walking distance of all residential neighborhoods and
employment areas. The National Recreation and Park Association defines walking distance as
one-half mile.
CMR: 246:06
Attachment F
3
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLAN~TG & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Clare Campbell,
Planner
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
May, 10, 2006
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
Adoption of Parkland Dedication Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council adopt a Parkland Dedication Ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 66477
("Quimby Act"). Staff further recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission
recommend that the Quimby Act ordinance also amend Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
16.58, Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community, Centers and Libraries to exempt
developments that are subject to Quimby Act fees from additional park impact fees.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
City Council colleague’s memo, dated January 23, 2006, directs staff to develop a draft parkland
dedication ordinance pursuant to the Quimby Act, to provide the City a mechanism to collect fees
for improving park facilities and/or require land dedication for new- public parks (Attachment A).
The Council’s action was a result of the current market trends of housing development in Palo
Alto and the effects of that development on existing park facilities. The likely increase in demand
on parks and recreational facilities from these newly developed residential units can be addressed
through the implementation of the Quimby Act.
Quimby Act
In accordance with California Government Code, §66477, local agencies may, by ordinance
require the payment of fees or dedication of land for park or recreational purposes as a condition
of approval of a tentative or parcel map involving residential development. Staff will include in
the Parkland Dedication Ordinance basic design standard for the facilities (e.g. recreation center,
City of Palo Alto Page 1
jungle gyq’ns, game courts, etc.). Some of the key requirements of the Quimby Act (Attachment
C) are:
¯Applies to subdivisions providing residential units
¯Ordinance includes defined standards for the determination of fees and amount of land
dedication
¯Fees and land exacted are to be used for the purposes of developing new or rehabilitating
existing parks or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision (not for day-to-day
operations)
¯With a subdivision of 50 parcels or less, only the fee can be mandated from the subdivider
(the City cannot require land dedication)
¯In circumstances where there are more than 50 dwelling units, but less than 50 parcels, the
City can mandate dedication of land
¯.Any fees collected shall be committed within five years after payqnent or returned without
any deduction to the current property owner
¯Credit shall apply towards exactions when the subdivider provides improvements on their
dedicated land
Park Impact Fees
The City currently collects Park Impact Fees (Attachment D) for all new" residential and
commercial developments (not for replacement units or square footage). These impact fees are
allocated for the acquisition and/or improvement of park facilities throughout the City (PA_MC
16.58.020(a)). Because the current impact fee applies to all projects, and the Parkland Dedication
Fee would apply to residential subdivisions, there would be a duplication of development fees
that would need to be corrected. For 100% affordable housing projects, the Park Impact Fee does
not apply; the Attorney’s Office is verifying whether or not this exemption can be made~ .for the
Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
If Council adopts the proposed Parkland Dedication Ordinance, staff also recommends an
amendment to the existing Park Impact Fee to exempt projects, or portions of projects, that _
would be subject to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The proposed Park Impact Fee
amendment would provide an exemption for residential portions of a subdivision. For example,
for a mixed-use subdivision, the non-residential area would be subject to Park Impact Fees and
the residential portion would be subject to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The purpose of
the proposed Park Impact Fee amendment is to ensure that projects will not be subject to paydng
double fees; all projects will be subject to either the Park Impact Fee or the Park Dedication
Ordinance, as appropriate.
"~Vhile both the Park Impact Fee and the Parkland Dedication Ordinance assess fees for
acquisition and park improvements, it is only with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance that
dedicated land can be required from a subdivider. That is the significance of adopting this
ordinance. It should be noted that the fees collected from the Parkland Dedication Ordinance and
Park Impact Fee cannot be used for the day-to-day maintenance for park facilities.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Method of Assessin~ Parkland Dedication Exactions
Staff recommends using the same method of assessment cm-rently used for determining the Park
Impact Fee for the Parkland Dedication fees; this provides a consistent method of assessing park
fees for all types of projects. At the time when the Park Ianpact Fees are reevaluated, the Parkland
Ordinance assessments can be also be updated.
In 2001, when the City adopted Park, Community Centers and Library Impact Fees, a study was
done by DMG-Maximus (DMG) which laid out the methodology for the assessment of fees. The
CM-R and study explaining the impact fee methodology is attached for back~ound information
(Attachment G). Fees should be calculated in current dollars and should be adjusted annually to
reflect changes in costs.
Below is a simplified summary of how the fee calculation is determined:
1.The first step in calculating the fees is to determine the number of users of the existing park
lands (DMG study, p. 3-2 to 3-3). [e.g. 121,600 users]
2.Based on the number of users and the existing park acreage, a ratio is calculated providing
the number of existing park acres per user. [e.g. 163.5 acres of existing park land divided by
121,600 users = 0.00134 acres/user]
3. Using the average costs for land acquisition and park improvements and the determined park
acres per user, the cost of land and improvements can be determined for the individual user.
[e.g. 0.00134 x cost of land @-$3 million/acre = land cost of $4,020/user; 0.00134 x cost of
improvements @ $400,000/acre = improvement cost of $536/user; total = $4,556]
4. The last step is to apply these dollar number to the average number of residents per housing
unit type (either single family or multi-family). The average number of residents per housing
type is based on the census data. See example below:
Unit Type Residents/Unit Cost/User for Land Total Fee
(census data)& Improvements Per Unit Type
(see~-~’~ above)
Single-Family 2.6 x $ 4,556 =$ 11,845.60
Multi-Family 1.7 x $ 4,556 =$ 7,745.20
The Comprehensive Plan Policy C-28 has a parkland goal of 2 acres/I,000 residents. At this
time, the Park Impact Fee, as well as the proposed Parkland Dedication Ordinance, does not
reach this goal. When the DMG study was done in 2001, the assumption was made that the City
is primarily built-out and there is limited available land for both new residential development and
for future conversion to parkland. The 1.34 acres/I,000 residents ratio used in the study is based
on maintaining the current condition, as a minimum standard (see DMG study, page3-1): Using
the same ratio (1.34 acres/1000 users) for the Parkland Dedication Ordinance maintains
consistency with the Park Impact Fee. As mentioned above, when the impact fees are updated,
the Parkland Dedication Ordinance can be updated as well. The land dedication is determined as
follows:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Unit Type Residents! Unit Parkland Standard Total Acres Per
I (census data)(1.34 acres/I,000 )Unit Type
Single-family t 2.6 x 0.00134 acres/person =0.0035I Multi-Family I ~1.7 x 0.00134 acres/person =0.0023
The sample calculations provided on the previous page are taken from the DMG study. The study
provides detailed descriptions for how each step is taken in the formulation of the fees. In
Attachment E, tables have been provided illustrating the Parkland Dedication Ordinance fees and
land dedication values with the current 2000 Census data and updated land and park
improvement values.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
The following Comprehensive Plan policies and pro~ams support the implementation of the
Parkland Dedication Ordinance:
PROGRAM C-23."
Stud), and recommend methods of private and public J~nancing for improved park maintenance,
rehabilitation, and construction.
POLICY C-27:
Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to meet the ~owing needs of
residents and employees of Palo Alto.
PROGRAM C-26:
In conjunction with new development proposals, pursue creation of park, plaza, or other public
gathering places that meet neighborhood needs.
POLICY C-28:
Use National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for locating and
developing new parks. These guidelines are as follows:
¯Neighborhood parks should be at least ~,o acres in size, although sites as small as one-half
acre may be needed as supplementary facilities. The maximum service area radius should be
one-half mile. Two acres of neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000
people.
¯District parks should be at least five acres in size. The maximum service area radius should
be one mile. Two acres of district park land should be provided for each 1,000 people.
A park should be provided within walking distance of all residential neighborhoods and
employment areas. The National Recreation and Park Association defines walking distance as
one-half mile.
RESOURCE IMPACT:
With the implementation of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, there will be a decrease in the
amount of Park Impact Fees collected. The difference, however, will be offset by the new fees
City of Palo Alto Page 4
collected, or lands dedicated, per the new Parkland Dedication Ordinance. Community Services
staff will have additional responsibility of overseeing implementation of the new ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report provides sufficient environmental
analysis for the adoption of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance. The proposed ordinance is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies assessed in the Comprehensive Plan ErR. As
new parkland is proposed, a site specific environmental analysis will be completed at that time to
determine impacts from park creation.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Colleague s Memo, January 23. 2006
B. City Council Meeting Excerpt Minute, JanuaD’ 23, 2006
C. Quimby Act
D. Impact Fee Schedule
E. Proposed Parkland Dedication Fees and Land Dedication Calculations
F. Chartl. 1: Persons per Household by Housing Type, Census 2000
G. CM-R:381:01 with Attachment (DMG study) - Development Impact Fees for Parks,
Community Centers and Libraries
COURTESY COPIES:
Amy L Glad, Home Builders Association
Ctms Draper, Silicon Valley Realtors
Prepared by:.C[~re Campbell, Plarmer
Reviewed by:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
"~ Anc~ Coe, Interim Deputy Director
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Planning and TranspoJ~ation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
May 10, 2006
DRAFT EXCERPT
NEW B USINESS
Public Hearings:
o Parkland Dedication Ordinance: Planning and Transportation Commission
recommendation of an ordinance to enable the City to require Parkland dedication and/or
in-lieu fees from development of new subdivisions. Environmental Assessment:
Comprehensive Plan EIR.
Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes, good evening Commissioners. In January of this year a City
Council Colleagues Memo directed Staff to prepare a Parkland Dedication Ordinance pursuant to
the Quimby Act. Staff has and continues to work with the Attorney’s Office and other City
departments to draft this new ordinance. Some of the key elements of the Quimby Act are that it
applies to all subdivisions providing residential units, the standards for the determination of fees
and amount of land dedication must be clearly defined in the ordinance, fees and land exacted
are to be used for the purposes of developing new or rehabilitating existing parks or recreational
facilities to serve the subdivision and it is not for day-to-day operations or maintenance. With a
subdivision of 50 parcels or less only the fee can be mandated from the subdivider, the City
cannot require land dedication. In the circumstances where there are more than 50 dwelling units
but less than 50 parcels the City can mandate land dedication. All the fees shall be committed
within five years after payment or returned without any deduction to the current property owner
and credit shall apply towards exactions when the subdivider provides improvements on their
dedicated land.
In developing the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance Staff has identified two key issues that
must be considered. The first r~lates to the applicability of the current park impact fees and the
second is the calculation method on which to base the new fees and dedicated land area. With
the implementation of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance residential subdivisions will be subject
to the new fee. These residential subdivisions are also subject to the current park impact fees and
therefore would be assessed twice for the same type of impact. To correct this double payment
Staff recommends that the park impact fee be amended to exclude projects that are subject to the
Parkland Dedication assessments.
For the method of fee assessments for the new ordinance Staff recommends using the same
method of assessment used for the current park impact fees. Using the same methodology
provides for consistent application of fees for park impact for all types of projects in the city.
When the impact fees are reevaluated at a future date the parkland assessments can also be
updated at the same time.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The major significant difference between the park impact fees and the proposed Parkland
Dedication Ordinance is that the latter can mandate land dedication from the developer. Other
than that difference the fees function basically the same way. They can be used for land
acquisition or for park improvements.
As far as public comment Staff was contacted by the Silicon Valley Realtor’s Association. We
had an informal conversation and they didn’t raise any issues. After reviewing tonight’s Staff
Report and the outcome of tonight’s meeting that Association may be interested in having a
meeting. No other members of the public have contacted Staff on the proposa!.
As a last note, the fees shorten in Attachment E wi!l be further refined to reflect accurately the
correct fee amounts. We are still refining those as we speak.
So in conclusion Staff recommends that the Plarming and Transportation Commission
recommend that the City Council adopt a Parkland Dedication Ordinance pursuant to the
Quimby Act and amend the Municipal Code Chapter 16.58 to exempt developments that are
subject to the Quimby Act fees from additional park impact fees. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions of Staff?. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: The calculations that were done weighted each visitor as heavily as each
resident. When that happens then the percentage of value or the weighted value there becomes
1.34 instead of something higher. That means that the developers actually pay less for their
parkland fees, as I read this. I am wondering why that is so heavily weighted for visitors because
most of us as residents use the space more regularly.
Mr. Jon Abendschein. Plarmer: Because the impact fee applies both to residential and
nonresidential the 1.34 ends up taking into account both residential and nonresidential
development in the City. The Quimby Act applies just to the residential subdivisions,
commercial would still be subject to the regular park impact fee.
Commissioner Cassel: I think ~ said it wrong, it is very late. When you look at the numbers in
here the weighting on that includes the commercial development and weights it at something
small like .20 and residents and then it also adds in the visitors use of the park and that becomes
37 percent of that weight. Then you only use the residential and commercial in doing the
calculation and that reduces the percentage of parkland per 1,000 people that we have and that is
what you are trying to maintain. I guess I was trying to figure out ways to increase that
percentage so that we would get more parkland out of it if there were any way or is there some
legal problem here. It just seems unfair to weight the nonresident visitors with the same weight.
It comes out that 50 percent of the weighting is in residents, some percent like 37 percent is in
visitors, and two percent is in the commercial use. That was my understanding when I read that
today or last night. I can’t seem to find the numbers right now. What it did was make that 1.34
instead of 1.6 or something like that and then you are charging it based on that number per 1,000
for the amount that is owed us. It is very important as far as I am concerned that we get this
land. We know how hard land is and it is much preferable ....
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Caporgno: I just want to add that this nexus study was done for the original park impact fee
so none of us participated in that. The nexus will probably be updated and when it is done we
can bring up this issue and at that time both the park impact fee and the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance fee would be modified accordingly.
Chair Burt: Could you clarify, would the impact fee and the dedication fee have to be - if one
were based upon equal inclusion of visitors or workers would the other also have to include that?
Ms. Caporgno: I don’t think that is the case it is just that we were informed that this nexus study
would cover for this fee at this time. When a new nexus analysis is done we could evaluate
whether or not it could be broken out. Don, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Emslie: Let me just add that I think the problem is we are confusing the basis for the impact
fee which is being shown here to show you that there is a conflict between the Quimby Act
dedication fee and the impact fee and that is the justification for creating an exemption for when
a property pays the Quimby Act fee which is going to be much higher because of the high price
of land than the impact fee would be. So I think the problems are really stemming from your
concerns about the impact fee. You don’t have to do a nexus study to justify the Quimby Act fee
it is prescribed by state law system of maintaining your park ratio based on increases in
population. It would never apply to any visitors other than residents who live in land that is
subdivided in the city.
Chair Butt: So in the Quimby Act ifI understand you correctly then in any of the projects over
50 units then because it allows us to require dedication of land we are automatically getting an
update in the land valuation. Whereas in the impact fee that is a fixed amount that has not stayed
current with the escalation in land values.
Mr. Emslie: That is correct and that has to be updated because impact fees are based on a
different body of law and a different premise. The premise in those is that there is a requirement
that cities can impose impacts that are proportionate to the creation of the impact by the
development can be offset only by a proportionate number. The Quimby Act fee is based on
maintaining your park ratio at your current or goal of certain acres per 1,000. So as you add
population you either get the in-lieu fee to create new parkland, amassing it in one particular
location or if the project is large enough, over 50 units, then you can require the park acreage on
the site.
Commissioner Cassel: It is that proportional number that you are talking about that I was talking
about.
Mr. Emslie: That is only there for background that is currently in place that is going to be
updated. So we will be bringing that forward.
Commissioner Cassel: As long as you are updating it.
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Larkin: I should just point out the Quimby Act ratio is determined by the Comprehensive
Plan. So if there were a concern about that ratio the opportunity to adjust it would be when we
do the Comprehensive Plan update.
Chair Burt: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have one minor question. If you have a piece of property and it is
redeveloped and there is no net increase in population on that property would there be fees or do
they receive credit in fact because there is no additional impact?
Mr. Larkin: It is not as simple a question as it should be. Yes, if there were a subdivision,
except there are exceptions for example if it were a condo conversion there would be no fee.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. What about if a developer or property owner were redevetoping a
property increasing the number of units would they only pay the difference on those additional
units?
Ms. Campbell: Are you talking about doing as subdivision of that property or are you just
talking about a project?
Commissioner Lippert: Any subdivision would be, again cottage cluster or you are
condominiumizing a multi-family building. What I am concerned about here and the reason I
ask this question is particularly important is I don’t want this fee to stop encouraging
redevelopment of properties and be an impediment.
Mr. Larkin: In answer to your second part is that if you are condominiumizing an existing
project the answer is no, there is no Quimby Act fee even though there is for a subdivision. If
you are adding new units and it meets the threshold then yes, there would be.
Commissioner Lippert: But are they paying that difference?
Mr. Larkin: Yes, they would pay the difference.
Commissioner Lippert: Just the difference?
Mr. Larkin: I am not 100 percent sure I believe it is based on the number of units that are being
created but I would need to confirm that.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Follow ups on both of these questions. Let me just take Lee’s first. So
in the circumstance where a property is being transitioned into a Village Residential in that case
the underlying property itself is getting presumably, in the example I will illustrate is getting
platted into four or six units at which point it is going to incur those fee, yes?
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Page 4
1
2 Commissioner Garber: The follow up that I wanted to have to the first one is my understanding
3 just because I need to understand, page 3 the method of assessing parkland dedication exactions,
4 the method that is described here is that what we are talking about as the way that these fees are
5 calculated? Is this what that is?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Likens: That methodology is described in the attachment that was done with the study and
that study described in detail what the methodology is and how it is setup.
Commissioner Garber: So is that what this is or is this something different?
Ms. Likens: That is exactly what this is. I tried to pull the numbers from the Attachment so that
way if you were to flip back and forth you would have an understanding.
Commissioner Garber: So then what gets updated in a Comprehensive Plan when it is done is
the number that is used here which is $3.0 million per acre?
Mr. Larkin: No, what gets updated in the Comprehensive Plan is the goal of acres per unit.
What gets updated annual is the cost of land.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Mr. Emslie: The Quimby Act basically allows the current market value of land to be the driver
in this. It is typically updated annually but in a rapidly escalating environment the Act provides
for an assessment or an appraisal that would determine what fair market value is for land at the
time of subdivision. So you can get the most accurate cost of land and plug this into the
equation. That is the nice tlSng of the Quimby Act is it has an automatic escalator because it
does allow you to use the current market value.
Commissioner Garber: Perfect, thank you.
Chair Butt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Just for our edification do you know when there is going to be a
reevaluation of what the park impact fees are?
Mr. Abendschein: We don’t have a timeline for that at this time.
Vice-Chair Holman: The reason I ask is because I think it might be something we might want to
bring to the attention of the Council, not that they don’t already know this or are aware of this
but the number that is being used to calculate them is $3.0 million an acre and well a couple of
things. One is they aren’t charging the maximum amount that they could charge and also they
are using a dollar amount of $3.0 million and acre and we are much higher than that currently.
Mr. Emslie: It is already on our work program. We have already identified the need to update
the nexus study that provides the justification for the impact fees.
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Vice-Chair Holman: But there is no timeline on it currently?
Mr. Emslie: Working with the Attorney’s Office we are looking at within the next six months to
a year.
Vice-Chair Holman: Okay, that is helpful to know. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I have one more question. Let me use an example. Say there was 10
acres of land. They were putting 30 units on an acre, that’s 300 units it would qualify for land
dedication. Does that mean they would still put 300 units on that land but they would just put it
on nine and a half acres? In other words, would it allow for an increase in density and they
would in turn Nve the land? Is that the intent?
Mr. Emslie: Yes it would. Again, it would be part of the city’s discretion to determine through
its site plan review where the acreage would be and how access would be given and so forth.
But yes, the idea is it wouldn’t take away from the development capacity of the land.
Chair Burt: Okay. Do we have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: I move that we support the StafFs recommendation.
SECOND
Vice-Chair Holman: Second.
Chair Burt: Okay, Dan would you like to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Garber: No, I think we have done a good job of it thus far. Thank you.
Chair Butt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Only just to say I really appreciate the Council Members, the Mayor and
the Vice-Mayor and Council Member Mossar who brought this forward. It has been something
too long in coming and I am really, really happy to be able to support it tonight.
Chair Burt: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Again I just want to reiterate that you made a good effort here to make
sure that people aren’t double taxed or not paying twice for parks. I would encourage that we
make sure that people are not paying three times which is if there are units that are already there
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
and the land is being redeveloped they already have paid for parks. So maybe those base units
should be deducted out. So I think we should look at that.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Burt: Okay. I support the motion enthusiastically. I would like to ca!l the question. All
those in favor? (aye) Opposed? That passes unanimously.
Page 7
Attachment H
COMPARISON OF PALO ALTO’S CURRENT
AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
Single Family Homes
This fee would not apply to single-family homes unless part of a new single-family residential subdivision
Multi.family Development
Multi-Family Development
Single.Family Residential Subdivisions
$45,000
Residential Subdivision
$40,000
$35,000
~ $30,000
~ $25,ooo
~ $20,000
~ $15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$o
J[] Sewer/Water [] water Capacity [] Parks/L~/CC [] Housing n Traffic [] Other [] Proposed Quimby Act (3 acre/1000 standard) j