Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff warns concentrated park impact fees and proposed state bill (SB 315) could reduce funds available across San Jose
Summary
Staff told the council that park impact (trust) fees are concentrated where most residential development occurs, fees have not been updated since 2017, and Senate Bill 315 — if enacted as described in the presentation — could sharply reduce or eliminate fee collections in many infill areas.
Deputy Director John Cicero and his team told the council that park impact fees, based on the Quimby Act model of land dedication, have produced uneven results citywide because residential development has been highly concentrated in a few districts.
"Because the fees are collected where they are derived, our city primarily has development in only 2 districts," Cicero said, noting that over a recent 10-year period District 3 generated approximately $81,000,000 in park trust collections while other districts collected little or none. Cicero explained that the fee operates in practice as a land-dedication requirement translated into dollars and that the code restricts spending to within three-quarters of a mile for neighborhood-serving projects and three miles for community-serving projects.
Staff warned that fee rates have not been updated since 2017 and that the city offers a series of credits and discounts — including up to 50% reductions for on-site recreational amenities, discounts for downtown high-rise and North San Jose, and affordable housing credits — that commonly reduce developer payments by 20–30% in typical projects. Cicero said these factors compound the geographic concentration, producing small annual receipts in many neighborhoods.
Staff also briefed council on Senate Bill 315, which staff said (as described in the presentation) would reduce or ban fees for residential infill within a half‑mile of existing parks and would cut other fees to a fraction in other areas. Cicero said the city submitted a letter of opposition and that the staff sees potential material impacts if state law changes in this direction.
Councilmembers and public commenters said they wanted the city to revisit the park-fee structure, update land values and fees, and explore alternative mechanisms (the staff pointed to San Diego’s mitigation-based approach) as part of a park master plan update and community engagement process.
