BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1359
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 1359 (Hernandez) - As Amended: April 29, 2013
SUBJECT : Quimby Act: use of fees.
SUMMARY : Allows Quimby Act fees to be used for the purpose of
developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or
community park or recreational facilities to serve areas in the
city or county with the greatest need. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows Quimby Act fees to be used for the purpose of
developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or
community park or recreational facilities to serve the
subdivision or subdivisions in the city or county with the
greatest need.
2)Requires the legislative body to hold a public hearing before
using fees in the manner described in 1) above.
3)Defines "subdivision or subdivision of the city or county with
the greatest need" to mean a subdivision with fewer than three
acres of park area per 1,000 members of a city, county, or
local public agency.
4)Allows the city, county, or other local agency to which the
land or fees are conveyed or paid to enter into a joint or
shared use agreement with one or more public districts in the
jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, a school district
or community college district, in order to provide access to
park or recreational facilities to residents of subdivisions
with fewer than three acres of park area per 1,000 members of
the population.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Quimby Act as part of the Subdivision Map Act.
2)Allows, pursuant to the Quimby Act, the legislative body of a
city or county to, by ordinance, require the dedication of
land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu,
or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as
AB 1359
Page 2
a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map,
if all of the following requirements are met:
a) 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;
b) The ordinance includes definite standards for
determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated
and the amount of a fee to be paid in lieu thereof, and
provides that the amount of land dedicated or fees paid
shall be based upon the residential density. 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 exceeds 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;
i) The park area per 1,000 members of the population of
the city, county, or local public 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 federal 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.
ii) For cities incorporated after the date of the most
recent available federal 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
AB 1359
Page 3
include the figures pertaining to the new city which were
calculated pursuant to this paragraph. Fees shall be
payable at the time of the recording of the final map or
parcel map or at a later time as may be prescribed by
local ordinance.
c) Requires the land, fees, or combination thereof to be
used only for the purpose of developing new or
rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or
recreational facilities to serve the subdivision;
d) The legislative body has adopted a general 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;
e) 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;
f) The city, county or other local public agency to which
the land or fees are conveyed or paid shall develop 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. Fees
collected under the ordinance shall be committed within
five years after the payment of the fees of the issuance of
building permits on one-half of the lots created by the
subdivision, whichever occurs later;
g) 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, exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of
land may be required notwithstanding that the number of
parcels may be less than 50;
h) 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
AB 1359
Page 4
a residential structure or structures on one or more of the
parcels within four years, the fee may be required to be
paid by the owner of each parcel as a condition of the
issuance of the permit; and,
i) 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.
3)Requires land or fees pursuant to the Quimby Act to be
conveyed or paid directly to the local public agency which
provides park and recreational services on a communitywide
level and to the area within which the proposed development
will be located, if that agency elects to accept the land or
fee.
4)If park and recreational services and facilities are provided
by a public agency other than a city or county, the amount and
location of land to be dedicated or fees to be paid shall,
subject to 2b) above, be jointly determined by the city or
county having jurisdiction and that other public agency.
5)Authorizes cities and counties to create infrastructure
financing districts (IFDs) and issue bonds to pay for
community scale public works: highways, transit, water
systems, sewer projects, flood control, child care facilities,
libraries, parks, and solid waste facilities.
6)Allows an IFD to divert property tax increment revenues from
other local governments, excluding school districts, for up to
30 years, in order to pay back bonds issued by the IFD.
7)Requires that in order to form an IFD a city or county must
develop an infrastructure plan, send copies to every
landowner, consult with other local governments, and hold a
public hearing.
8)Requires that when forming an IFD, local officials must find
that its public facilities are of communitywide significance
and provide significant benefits to an area larger than the
IFD.
9)Requires that every local agency, who will contribute its
AB 1359
Page 5
property tax increment revenue to the IFD, approve the plan.
10)Requires a two-thirds voter approval of the formation of the
IFD and the issuance of bonds.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)This bill allows Quimby Act fees to be used for the purpose of
developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or
community park or recreational facilities to serve areas in
the city or county with the greatest need. The bill also
allows for funds to be used to create joint use agreements
between school districts, universities, counties and cities.
In order for Quimby Act fees to be used for subdivisions with
the greatest need, the legislative body of the city or county
would need to first hold a public hearing. The bill defines
"subdivision or subdivision of the city or county with the
greatest need" to mean a subdivision with fewer than three
acres of park area per 1,000 members of a city, county, or
local public agency.
This bill is author-sponsored.
2)According to the author, "Local governments in California
provide a critical role in the effort to set aside parkland
and open space for recreational purposes. Since the passage
of the Quimby Act in 1975, cities and counties have been
authorized to require developers to set aside land, donate
conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements.
Per the Quimby Act, these funds are to 'serve the subdivision'
being developed. Thus, the resources stay in the area
undergoing development. Areas with little to no development
do not receive these resources, many of which are park poor.
"Low-income communities and communities of color suffer the
most from disparities in access to green space and from health
and social problems that stem from such inequalities. The
fact is that low-income people of color disproportionately
lack equal access to parks, school fields, beaches, trails,
and forests, which has been in part a result of unequal land
use policy. In a 2011 study, The City Project found that many
areas in California and in particular Los Angeles County can
be considered park poor. "Park poor" defined in California
AB 1359
Page 6
law refers to any geographic area that provides less than 3
acres of green space per 1,000 residents.
"Investing in California's parks and creating equitable access
to green space throughout the state would create healthier
communities and decrease childhood obesity. Parks also
provide an important sense of community pride and are low or
no-cost places to exercise and celebrate community events,
family events, heritage and art."
3)Cities and counties have been authorized since the passage of
the 1975 Quimby Act to pass ordinances requiring that
developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or
pay fees for park improvements. The Quimby Act was
substantially amended in 1982 to further define acceptable
uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, and provide
acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the
exaction. One other major change was to specify that the
exactions must be closely tied to a project's impacts as
identified through traffic studies required by CEQA, meaning
that there has to be a "nexus."
To impose Quimby Act fees, the city or county must have a
general plan or specific plan that contains policies and
standards for park facilities. Under the Quimby Act, fees
must bear a reasonable relationship to the proposed
subdivision. Those fees can only be used for developing new
parks or rehabilitating parks that serve that subdivision. As
well, the Quimby Act requires that 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."
This bill broadens how and where the Quimby Act fees can be
used. The Committee may wish to consider the implications of
undoing 30-plus years of long-held policy that requires the
local government to establish a reasonable nexus in order to
exact the fee.
4)This bill also requires, if Quimby Act fees are to be used for
"park poor" areas rather than to "serve" the subdivision for
which the developer has paid the Quimby fee, that before fees
are used in such a manner, the legislative body must hold a
public hearing.
AB 1359
Page 7
Under current law, implementation of a Quimby ordinance begins
once a developer files an application for a development
project with a tentative subdivision parcel map. The map goes
to a review committee that makes recommendations on the map,
which are then sent to the planning department. The city
council or board of supervisors would then act on the final
map during a public hearing and if approved, the fees would be
paid.
The Committee may wish to consider the implications of
requiring the legislative body to hold a hearing before fees
can be used for the broader purposes pursuant to this bill's
provisions.
5)A previous bill, AB 2936 (Aroner, 2002), would have allowed
counties and cities to spend their Quimby Act fees to prepare
master plans for park and recreation facilities. The Senate
Local Government Committee analysis on the bill notes that "AB
2936 violates [the] nexus test in two ways. First, the bill
allows local officials to divert Quimby Act fees away from
capital spending and use the money for master plans. Second,
the bill allows officials to divert fees raised from a
specific subdivision and use the money to benefit the wider
community. Mitigation fees must be used to mitigate the
project's effects, not to compensate for other unmet needs."
AB 2936 was subsequently amended to address an unrelated
topic.
In light of the previous legislative attempt to broaden the
usage of Quimby fees, the Committee may wish to consider
whether the Legislature should depart from the established
nexus requirements.
6)The League of California Cities, in their "Notice of Concerns"
letter, writes that "There is a question of whether there is a
sufficient nexus between the fees paid and the benefit,
including the recipients of that benefit. There is abundant
case law upholding the principle that development fees are not
taxes, if they are imposed in accordance with the procedure
found in Government Code 66000 and those following. These
statutes (which constitute the Mitigation Fee Act) essentially
codify the required nexus that courts have repeatedly said is
necessary to justify a fee."
AB 1359
Page 8
"In the case of Kings County v. City of Lemoore (2010 185
Cal.App. 4th 554 ), the California Appellate Court rejected the
idea that the Quimby Act was the exclusive statutory authority
for funding parks and recreational facilities. The court held
that a separate municipal park fee (outside the scope of the
Quimby Act) to fund city-wide recreational facilities was
valid. This raises the question of whether amending the
Quimby Act is the proper funding mechanism, given the nexus
analysis that must occur."
Given these legal concerns by cities, the Committee may wish
to consider whether the threat of litigation would act as a
deterrent for cities and counties to actually use Quimby Act
fees for the broader purposes pursuant to the bill's
provisions.
7)According to the California Building Industry Association
(CBIA), in opposition, "AB 1359 does very little to actually
solve the problem at hand. It's extremely likely that this
bill could only further exacerbate the problem. The Quimby
Act is intended to fulfill the needs of new or growing
development by adding additional park capacity. Diverting
funds to modernize and renovate an older park across town does
not increase park capacity and only further reduces the ration
of people per park."
CBIA also writes that "A number of existing tools already
exist and are at the disposal of local governments.
Development fees are collected on each and every permit in the
state of California, and these fees include those levied for
improvement and maintenance of parks. Additionally,
Mello-Roos Districts, and Infrastructure Financing Districts
(IFD) provide opportunities and tools which can revitalize
existing parks. In the Legislature right now
are a host of redevelopment-type tools, one of which is
authored by Assemblyman Alejo
(AB 1080) that seeks to provide a tool to revitalize
disadvantaged communities, including park funding - CBIA is in
strong support of [AB 1080]."
The Committee may wish to consider whether the author's stated
purpose of increasing funds to be used in "park poor" areas
could be better accomplished through an IFD or other financing
tool.
AB 1359
Page 9
8)Support arguments : Supporters argue that this bill will
invest in California's parks and create more equitable access
to green space throughout the state and would create healthier
communities, decrease childhood obesity, and help alleviate
mental illness caused by lack of activity and stress.
Opposition arguments : Opponents argue that the existing
requirement to "serve the subdivision" provides the nexus
between the fee being collected and the impact from the
subdivision, and that circumventing that requirement would
open the door to constitutional challenges to the
implementation of the Quimby Act.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Amigos de los Rios
Baldwin Park City Council
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
The City Project
UFCW Local 1428
Concerns
League of California Cities
Opposition
California Building Industry Association
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958