BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE Senator Lois Wolk, Chair BILL NO: AB 1359 HEARING: 7/3/13 AUTHOR: R. Hernández FISCAL: No VERSION: 6/26/13 TAX LEVY: No CONSULTANT: Lui QUIMBY ACT FEES Allows Quimby Act fees to be used in a neighborhood other than where fees were paid, under specified conditions. Background and Existing Law The Subdivision Map Act allows cities and counties to impose fees or dedications of land for specific uses as conditions of subdivision map approval. Since 1975, the Quimby Act, as part of the Subdivision Map Act, authorizes counties and cities, by ordinance, to require subdividers to dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of approving a new subdivision (SB 977, Gregorio, 1974). California courts have ratified the use of Quimby Act fees, holding that they are designed to maintain and preserve open space for the recreational use of the residents of new subdivisions, not the city at large (Associated Homebuilders of the East Bay v. City of Walnut Creek (1971)). To impose Quimby Act fees, a county or city must have a general plan or a specific plan that contains policies and standards for park facilities. Park and recreational facilities also must be consistent with principles and standards. Special districts work with cities and counties to receive parkland dedications or in-lieu fees. The imposition of dedications or fees is authorized by a local government's general police power, and is subject to the U.S. Supreme Court's "nexus" (Nollan v. Coastal Commission (1987)) and "rough proportionality" tests. The "nexus" test requires a government to establish the link between the exaction and the interest being advanced by that exaction. There also must be a "rough proportionality" between proposed exactions and the projected impacts that the exactions are intended to allay AB 1359 -- 6/26/13 -- Page 2 (Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)). For example, the Dolan case focused on an administrative permit to expand a small plumbing and electrical supply business, which was conditioned on the dedication of a bike lane and a storm drainage easement along an existing drainage channel. The Supreme Court overturned both exactions, holding that the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. In response to perceived exaction abuses, the Legislature enacted AB 1600 (Cortese, 1987), known as the "Mitigation Fee Act," which, like Nolan, required local agencies to show a "nexus" or "reasonable relationship" between the facility or park land and the proposed subdivision. On June 25, the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013) found that a government must satisfy Nollan/Dolan requirements even if the government denies the land-use permit. The Supreme Court also affirmed the California Supreme Court's ruling on Erlich v. Culver City (1996) case, which required that the Nollan/Dolan test be applied to monetary exactions. Counties and cities can use Quimby Act fees only to develop new parks or rehabilitate existing parks or recreational facilities that serve that subdivision. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act can't be used for park facilities' maintenance and operation. State law authorizes the joint use of schools, parks, and other public recreational facilities with other public agencies (AB 3100, Greene, 1976). It also authorizes any school district to grant the use of any building or equipment of the district for community recreational purposes (SB 1854, Morgan, 1990). Environmental justice advocates would like to allocate Quimby Act fees paid to mitigate one subdivision to pay for parks and recreational facilities in park poor neighborhoods. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 1359 authorizes fees paid as a condition to AB 1359 -- 6/26/13 -- Page 3 the approval of a tentative map or parcel map to be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities in a neighborhood other than a neighborhood located in the subdivision for which fees were paid, if all of the following requirements are met: The neighborhood in which the fees are to be expended has fewer than three acres of park per 1,000 members of the neighborhood population. The neighborhood in which the subdivision for which the fees were paid has a park area per 1,000 members of the neighborhood population ratio that meets or exceeds the ratio calculated pursuant to existing state law, but in no event not less than three acres per 1,000 members. The legislative body holds a public hearing before using the fees. The legislative body must make a finding, supported by substantial evidence, that it is reasonably foreseeable that future inhabitants of the subdivision for which the fee is imposed will use the proposed park and recreational facilities in the neighborhood where the fees are used. The city, county, or other local agency to which the land or fees are conveyed or paid may enter into a joint or shared use agreement with one or more other public districts in the jurisdiction, including a school district or community college district, to provide access to park or recreational facilities to residents of subdivisions with fewer than three acres of park per 1,000 members of the population. State Revenue Impact No estimate. Comments 1. Purpose of the bill . Because Quimby Act fees are required to serve the subdivision from which fees were obtained, areas with little to no development do not receive any dedication or in-lieu fees for park improvements, creating "park poor" neighborhoods. According to the author, "Low-income communities and AB 1359 -- 6/26/13 -- Page 4 communities of color suffer the most from disparities in access to green space and from health and social problems [stemming] from such inequalities. Low-income people of color disproportionately lack equal access to parks, school fields, beaches, trails, and forests. Investing in California's parks and creating equitable access to green space would create healthier communities and decrease childhood obesity." 2. Nexus . The power to approve development is the same power public officials use to impose conditions on their approvals. County and city officials can require subdividers to dedicate land or pay fees in-lieu of dedication to mitigate the effects of the proposed projects. The Mitigation Fee Act, the Map Act, the Quimby Act, and court decisions all require public officials to identify the nexus between a project's effects and the conditions they impose. Using this nexus requirement, counties and cities can require builders to pay developers' fees that mitigate their projects' effects. AB 1359 violates this fundamental nexus test. The bill allows local 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 or existing deficiencies. Despite the bill's laudable goal, Legislators should be aware that the bill directly challenges case law and violates the nexus test. 3. Unintended consequences . AB 1359 may set a problematic precedent that other public agencies may attempt to follow. If Quimby Act fees can be spent on a neighborhood other than where the fee is collected, will local public works departments try to spend traffic mitigation fees outside a boundary area? AB 1359 lays the groundwork for similar proposals. 4. Case law . Provisions of this bill may have implications for a state court's decision in Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010). That decision held that impact fees are not preempted by the Quimby Act. The court affirmed that "the Quimby Act is designed to maintain and preserve open space for the recreational use of the residents of new subdivisions, not the city at large. In contrast, the community/recreation facility impact fees are to be used to AB 1359 -- 6/26/13 -- Page 5 build unique facilities intended to serve the entire population of the city. There is no duplication of fees." AB 1359 broadens the scope of the Quimby Act beyond park fees tied to a subdivision, blurring the distinction between the Quimby Act and AB 1600, which imposes fees for park and recreational facilities that serve a wider community. Under AB 1359, local governments may be vulnerable to litigation if they use fees outside the subdivision because the bill creates a new, untested legal standard which is not consistent with Nollan/Dollan standards. 5. Scope . Existing law authorizes school districts to enter into joint-use agreements for schools, parks, and other public recreational facilities with other local governments. It also authorizes a school district to grant the use of any of its buildings, grounds, or equipment to another local agency for recreation purposes. AB 551 places a similar authorization in the Quimby Act. This is intended to provide local governments the flexibility to use Quimby Act fees to pay for joint-use agreements. Current law prohibits any Quimby Act fees from being used for maintenance or operations. AB 551 departs from this prohibition, allowing fees originally intended to offset the impacts of development for a specific subdivision, to finance operations at-large. The Committee may wish to consider whether the use of fees for joint-use agreements is consistent with the purposes of the Quimby Act. 6. Previous legislation . AB 1359 is not the first bill seeking to reallocate Quimby Act fees. AB 2936 (Aroner, 2002) would have allowed cities and counties to spend Quimby Act fees to prepare for park and recreational facilities' master plans. The bill was later amended to contain different provisions. AB 310 (Goldberg, 2001) is nearly identical to AB 1359. It would have allow local park or recreational authorities to use Quimby Act "in lieu" fees for park and recreational development outside the area of the subdivision charged with the fee, when certain conditions were met. This bill also was amended to contain different provisions. Assembly Actions AB 1359 -- 6/26/13 -- Page 6 Assembly Local Government:5-0 Assembly Floor: 47-26 Support and Opposition (6/27/13) Support : Acajachemen Nation, Janeno Tribe; American Planning Association, California Chapter; Amigos de los Rios; Anahuak Youth Sports Association; Asian and Pacific Islander Obesity Prevention Alliance; Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council; California Pan Ethnic Health Network; California Wilderness Coalition; Charter Oak Unified School District; Cities of Baldwin Park and Coachella; The City Project; Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles; Councilmember Brian Gutierrez, California State Council on Developmental Disabilities; Latino Coalition for a Healthy California; Montebello Unified School District; The Trust for Public Lands; UFCW Local 1428. Opposition : Unknown.