LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TRUST POLICY BRIEF

LOS ANGELES NEIGHBORHOOD LAND TRUST POLICY BRIEF Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements

Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements March 2014 Written by Donald R. Spivack Elva Yañez Alina Bokde Thank you to The California Endowment for its generous support of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust that made this work possible. Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust 315 West 9th Street, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90015 (213) 572-0188 phone (213) 572-0192 fax www.lanlt.org Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust. All rights reserved.

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief 2 Letter from the Land Trust he mission of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust is to build healthier, stronger and safer neighborhoods by creating urban parks and community gardens. We organize residents living near our park sites to identify community needs for the site, create relevant programs and to steward these parks and gardens. The Land Trust was established in 2004 to respond to the deplorable lack of park space in Los Angeles most vulnerable communities. A growing body of research documents disparities by race and income in access to parks, open space and recreation services. These disparities contribute to health inequities and the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Other research has shown that the City of Los Angeles provides the least amount of accessible park space per capita and spends less on parks and recreation services than most other major U.S. and California cities. While Los Angeles low income neighborhoods and communities of color shoulder a disproportionate burden of the resulting inequities, disparities and lowered quality of life, the pervasive lack of park space impacts all Angelenos. As an environmental justice organization, we focus our development of green and recreational spaces in the region s most vulnerable communities. We work exclusively in neighborhoods that are significantly impacted by a lack of green space and associated negative health impacts neighborhoods where the average open space is.01 acres per 1,000 residents and a large proportion of the population are: Living in poverty, Under the age of 19, and Members of households led by single women. It s not enough to build a park or garden in a low-income neighborhood; someone has to care for it. For this reason, community organizing has been a key component of the Land Trust s park development model, ensuring resident ownership of the parks that we build and their long-term success. From the start, our organizers work with residents living near new park sites to identify community needs and plan park facilities, create relevant programs and maintain the parks as a shared public resource. Even with our many successes, the Land Trust continues to evolve its organizational model. The publication of this policy brief marks the Land Trust s formal entry into the policy arena. The Land Trust is uniquely positioned to work with a wide range of stakeholders to address park inequities and ensure that residents who are most impacted play a leadership role. A community-driven policy advocacy voice focused on urban parks and green infrastructure in Los Angeles is long overdue and will help overburdened neighborhoods get ahead of the policy curve. The Land Trust is eager to help shape and advocate for a bold policy advocacy agenda in partnership with key allies, one that goes beyond defensive land use battles and pro-actively addresses the conditions giving rise to park inequities in the first place. T

3 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements Park advocates and policy makers have long focused on Los Angeles Quimby policy, especially after large sums of Quimby funds were found to be unspent while park development and improvements languished. Given the complexity of LA s Quimby policy and program, it is no surprise that legislative fixes to Quimby and the way it has been implemented have been slow in coming. In developing this policy brief, the Land Trust examined the workings of the State Quimby Act, the local Quimby ordinance, and related policies and programs. Our policy brief analyzes the limitations of LA s Quimby ordinance and recommends a set of achievable policy improvements to enhance its functionality within the basic limitations of the law. While Quimby was never intended to address park inequities, we believe our recommendations for across-the-board improvements to the local policy will benefit the low-income neighborhoods hardest hit by lack of development and insufficient park space. We also believe that improving Quimby is simply a first step in addressing the larger policy and budget changes required to reverse the park inequities experienced on a daily basis by poor children and their families living in Los Angeles. Alina Bokde Executive Director Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief Table of Contents I. Introduction......................................................... 5 II. Background and History California Quimby Act............................................... 5 Los Angeles Quimby Ordinance...................................... 6 Los Angeles Finn Ordinance......................................... 7 Residential Development Taxes...................................... 7 Administration of Quimby in Los Angeles............................. 8 City Audits.......................................................... 8 Audit Responses................................................... 10 Legislative Activity................................................. 11 III. Limitations of Quimby.......................................... 12 IV. Quimby Improvements Amend the Basic Limitations in the State Quimby Act................ 13 Local Policy Recommendation 1: Change the Basic Service Radium................................ 14 Local Policy Recommendation 2: Add to the Definition of Qualifying Parks.......................... 15 Local Policy Recommendation 3: Change Credits for On-Site Recreational Amenities................ 15 Local Policy Recommendation 4: Adjust Fee Deferrals for Affordable and Senior Housing............ 16 Local Policy Recommendation 5: Encourage Land Dedication...................................... 17 Local Policy Recommendation 6: Adjust Fee Schedules for In Lieu Fee Payments.................... 17 V. Other Options: Mitigation Fees............................... 18 VI. Conclusion......................................................... 19 VII..Resource Documents............................................ 19 Appendix A: Summary of LANLT Policy Recommendations................. 20 4

5 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements I. Introduction his policy brief analyzes the California Quimby Act as well as Los Angeles existing Quimby and Finn implementing ordinances and policies. The Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust undertook this analysis to better understand the potential for, and limitations of, Quimby to serve as a mechanism T to mitigate the severe deficits in parkland found in Los Angeles most vulnerable communities. In developing this analysis, the Land Trust drew upon the expertise of recognized policy experts and held discussions with representatives of the Los Angeles Department of City Planning (DCP), Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP), as well as park and open space advocates.... the Quimby Act was seen as a way of preserving open space and providing parks and recreation facilities for growing communities, mostly on the urban fringes. II. Background and History California Quimby Act he State of California adopted the Quimby Act named for its author, Assembly Member John P. Quimby in 1965, as Section 66477 of the California Government Code. The Act sets forth provisions for the dedication of parkland, or the payment of fees in lieu of dedication of land, as a condition of approval of residential subdivisions, that is, the division of land into lots or parcels slated for residential development. That process is itself also governed by state law (Section 66424 of the California Government Code). The state enacted the Quimby Act at a time of rapid suburbanization in California. The state was experiencing substantial growth; the Quimby Act was seen as a way of preserving open space and providing parks and recreation facilities for growing communities, mostly on the urban fringes. The underlying principle of the Act was that new residents would place T a strain on the limited network of parks and open space already in existence and thus it was reasonable to seek, from the developers whose projects would lead to increased population, resources to mitigate the impact of that population growth. The Quimby Act narrowly defines its reach to the park, open space and recreational needs of new residents of affected subdivisions; the language of the Act specifies it is to be used to develop new or rehabilitate existing park and recreation facilities that serve the subdivision being required to make the land dedication or pay the fee. The language of the Act does not allow for the use of Quimby funds for maintenance and operation of parks and recreation facilities. It further sets a target of three acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents of a subdivision.1 It is important to recognize that California s Quimby Act did not address, and was not intended to address, park and open space needs or shortfalls in already developed communities2, which even then were beginning to suffer disinvestment and lack of 1 G overnment Code Section 66477(a)(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 recreation facilities to serve the subdivision. [Emphasis added.] Section 66477 (a)(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. These conditions are carried over into Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 17.12(E). Government Code Section 66477(a)(2) also lays out the use of census data to determine average unit occupancies and the way to calculate the level of existing parkland and provides that the standard may be increased to five acres per 1,000 persons if the service area is at or above the three acre measure at the time of subdivision approval.

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief resources for expansion and improvement as middle income populations moved from inner cities to suburbs. Increasingly populated by lower income residents, cities saw their tax revenues declining, with park expenditures often being among the first to be cut in response to the loss of revenue. This situation was worsened with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which severely restricted property tax revenues to local jurisdictions and shifted many costs for basic services, most specifically education, to the state. In 2013, Assembly Member Roger Hernandez introduced Assembly Bill (AB) 1359 which amended the Quimby Act in an effort to provide a means for Quimby funds to flow to park poor communities. The bill was signed by the Governor and chaptered by the Secretary of State on September 28, 2013. It provides that a developer, in satisfaction of the Quimby Act, may deposit funds that can be used in other areas if (1) the neighborhood to which the funds are to be channeled, or park improvements are to be made, can be documented to have less than three acres of park land per 1,000 inhabitants, (2) the neighborhood in which the subdivision supplying the funds is located can be documented to be at or above three acres of park land per 1,000 inhabitants including those to be added by the subdivision, (3) the residents of the subdivision in question can reasonably be expected to use the park facilities in the community in which they are to be placed, (4) local procedures allow for the distances between the subdivision supplying the funds and the site on which they are to be used and (5) the legislative body (in Los Angeles the City Council) conducts a public hearing regarding this use of the funds. While there has been little time since this amendment was enacted to fully evaluate it, our initial sense 6 is that it may be difficult to meet the requirements of the amendment, especially the requirement to show that residents of the subdivision supplying the funds can be reasonably expected to use the facilities funded. Furthermore, many of the changes discussed below regarding the local Quimby and Finn ordinances, among other documents, would still need to be made to allow Los Angeles to take advantage of AB 1359. Chief among these are regulations that limit the distance between where Quimby funds are generated and where they can be spent currently a maximum of two miles. Los Angeles Quimby Ordinance The Quimby Act allows local communities to adopt implementing ordinances that require developers of residential subdivisions to dedicate land for, or pay impact fees that can be used for, securing recreational parklands and facilities that serve the needs of the It is important to recognize that California s Quimby Act did not address, and was not intended to address, park and open space needs or shortfalls in already developed communities... 2 A ssembly Bill 1359 (2013-2014 session), chaptered in 2013, did modify the Quimby Act to allow use of Quimby funds in park-poor neighborhoods, if specified conditions are met.

7 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements future residents of those subdivisions. The City of Los Angeles adopted Ordinance 141,422 (the Quimby Ordinance ) in 1971 to implement the Quimby Act, setting out the terms and conditions under which subdivision applicants were required to dedicate land or pay fees, creating dedication requirements (proportions of the land in a subdivision that needed to be dedicated, fee schedules and the like) and creating the Subdivision Fees Trust Fund to accumulate the fees paid. These terms and conditions are embodied in Section 17.12 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The dedication requirements are set forth in LAMC Section 17.12(B) and the fee schedule is updated annually pursuant to LAMC Section 17.12(H). The Quimby Ordinance applies to subdivisions including typical single-family tract developments and new condominium projects, with schedules that apply to either the number of lots for tract development or the number of units for multi-story condominium developments. Condominium conversions as contrasted with new condominium developments are excluded since, typically, conversions change the ownership structure of, but do not change the number of residential units in, a development and thus are not expected to lead to an increase in population. Los Angeles Finn Ordinance To partially address this shortcoming in the Quimby Act, and partially in response to the additional revenue impacts of Proposition 13, the City in 1985 adopted Ordinance 159,691. This policy created a separate park impact fee mechanism, the Zone Change Park Fee, sometimes referred to as the Finn fee, after Councilman Howard Finn, who introduced the ordinance. The City applies this fee to multi-family residential developments that require or seek a change in zoning, as from a commercial or industrial zone to a residential zone, or from a single-family to a multi-family zone, to allow a developer to construct a multi-family (apartment) residential structure. This parallel Zone Change Park Fee is collected pursuant to LAMC Section 12.33.3 Residential Development Taxes In the course of conducting background research for this policy brief, two taxes were identified that may have relevance for generating park and open space resources for those communities with the greatest need in Los Angeles. The Dwelling Unit Construction Tax was adopted in 1973 and requires $200 per new dwelling unit to partially offset the geographic limitations of the Quimby Act and Ordinance, and to generate resources for parks in areas of the City where there are few subdivisions. Per LAMC Section 21.10, any development that pays a Quimby or Finn fee is allowed a credit for the amount of the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax. The tax is collected by the Department of Building and Safety (DBS) in a Park and Recreational Sites and Facilities fund, to be used similar to Quimby and Finn fees for the acquisition and development of park and recreational sites and facilities. In addition to the deferrals for elderly, handicapped and affordable housing units provided in the Quimby and Finn Ordinances and discussed below, homeless shelters and units reconstructed following the Northridge Earthquake are exempted. Unfortunately, no additional documentation or information regarding the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax or its corresponding fund could be identified. In addition, the City adopted Ordinance 162,421 on May 28, 1987, creating a Residential Development Tax of $300 per new dwelling

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief unit created, effective July 1, 1987 Per LAMC Section 21.13, this tax covers condominium conversions if the original building being converted did not pay the tax. Like the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax, the Residential Development Tax is payable to DBS and it provides the same deferrals and exemptions as the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax. Similar to the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax, the Land Trust was unable to secure additional documentation or information regarding the Residential Development Tax or its corresponding fund. The lack of information or documentation regarding the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax, the Residential Development Tax and their corresponding revenue funds makes it difficult to determine whether they supplement or offer viable alternatives to the existing Quimby policy and program. The City of Los Angeles should undertake an audit to document the nature and uses of these taxes in relation to the intended purpose to generate resources for parks in areas of the City where there are few subdivisions. Administration of Quimby in Los Angeles Historically, three City departments have been involved in administering and handling Quimby and Finn fees and their usage. Fees collected through both the Quimby Ordinance and the Finn Ordinance are administered by the City s Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP), which collects the fees, accepts land donations and can grant exemptions and/ or fee credits. RAP also determines how collections will be used to create parks and recreational amenities. The Department of City Planning (DCP) reviews initial subdivision maps and prepares Quimby fee calculations once a subdivision map has been approved, 8 or Finn fee calculations when a zone change project flows through the City s land use approval process. DCP is also charged with updating the fee schedule every year. (The City uses the same dedication and fee schedules for both subdivision-based and zone change-based dedications and fees. Commonly, the City does not differentiate between the two dedication and fee mechanisms, referring to them collectively as Quimby requirements and obligations. This convention will generally be followed in the balance of this policy brief.) Third, the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) tracks development conditions as related to Quimby and follows up with RAP to ensure that Quimby conditions have been met before a final subdivision map can be recorded. (As noted above a fourth department, Building and Safety (DBS), is involved in the collection and handling of the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax and the Residential Development Tax.) It is important to note that an early step in the creation of a subdivision is to determine whether Quimby fees or dedications might not be required. This could occur if a project was determined to be in an area with sufficient park space. If an area exceeds the three acre minimum requirement of park and recreation space per 1,000 residents, there is no need under the Quimby Act, although a provision of the Act allows the requirement to be increased to five acres under such circumstances. Other exemptions or deferrals will be discussed below. City Audits In the mid-2000 s, it became evident that large sums had accumulated in the City s Quimby Trust funds and that the City was finding it difficult to spend those funds effectively. According to a City audit discussed below, the fund had accumulated $129 million by 2008. This 3 In response to an inquiry regarding alternate ways the City might be able to collect park fees and finance parks and recreation facilities, the Department of City Planning indicated that the City Attorney had advised them that the City cannot opt out of the Quimby Act for subdivisions and must therefore implement the Quimby Act through the subdivision process. Fees collected under the Finn Ordinance are pursuant to state enabling legislation that allows fees to mitigate development impacts, and thus can apply to non-subdivision-based developments. LAMC Section 12.33(B), which implements the Finn fees, specifies that the dedication and fee requirements shall be identical to those in established by the Quimby Ordinance, specifically LAMC Section 17.12(F). It should be noted that in their audit of the Department of Recreation and Park s handling of Quimby fees, the City Controller reported that one unnamed jurisdiction stopped using Quimby-based fees but it is not clear from their report if this applied to subdivisions.

9 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements While Los Angeles has much less parkland overall in comparison to other major U.S. cities, its lower income neighborhoods and Latino, African-American and Asian-Pacific Islander populations have significantly less access to park resources when compared to other more affluent groups. lack of expenditure was immediately affecting areas of the City such as Downtown and Hollywood that were experiencing substantial, primarily condominium, construction after many years with little residential development activity. (High land prices, however, discouraged the City from land acquisition for parks in these areas under the limited parameters the City permits for Quimby fund expenditures.) At the same time, academic and community-based research focused on higher-density, lower income communities and communities of color showed that these areas also were experiencing a dearth of park expenditures.4 Such research documented patterns of both park inequality (lack of park space and recreational facilities) and inequity (lack of access to those facilities that did exist in the City) that have resulted from the confluence of discriminatory policies and practices, devolution, economic and fiscal restructuring, as well as place-based conditions unique to Los Angeles. While Los Angeles has much less parkland overall in comparison to other major U.S. cities, its lower income neighborhoods and Latino, African-American and Asian-Pacific Islander populations have significantly less access to park resources when compared to other more affluent groups.5,6 The City Controller undertook a number of reviews of the Department of Recreation and Parks (RAP) starting in that same time period and, on January 5, 2006, released an audit which found that access to recreational opportunities is not equitably distributed within the City, with park usage being further affected in some communities by both actual and perceived lack of safety, inconsistent levels of outreach and programming by RAP staff, different fee structures for program users and the ability to generate private donations to support facilities and programs in more affluent communities. It also found that RAP based its interpretation of park, recreation and open space needs on user satisfaction surveys rather than true needs assessments, and that the last such survey (at the time of the audit) dated to 1999.7 On February 21, 2008, the City Controller released an audit of the City s handling of the Quimby funds and noted several problems in administering those funds, some of which could be traced to the City s codes and procedures and some of which were traced to the City s own park development goals and objectives. That audit pointed out: T he lack of a comprehensive plan for spending the accumulated funds; Certain miscalculations in the fee schedule; S chedules that encouraged fee payments instead of land dedication or construction of facilities; and C onstraints of the maximum two-mile radius around the contributing subdivision set out in the City s Public Recreation Plan (further discussed below) for the expenditure of the fees. The 2008 audit in particular also pointed out that 4 S ee, for example, Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity Mapping Analysis by Jennifer Wolch, John P. Wilson and Jed Fehrenbach, Department of Geography, University of Southern California, in Urban Geography 2005, 26, 1, pp 4-35. 5 Wolch, et. al., p 5. 6 Children in Los Angeles Parks: A Study of Equity, Quality and Children s Satisfaction with Neighborhood Parks. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris and Orit Stieglitz, Department of Urban Planning, University of California Los Angeles, 2002. 7 Performance Audit of Recreation and Community Services in the Department of Recreation and Parks, City Controller Laura Chick, January 5, 2006, pages ii-vii.

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief the City accounted for its Quimby fees in several different formats and tracking systems, which contained contradicting numbers, making it difficult to ascertain what funds existed, how much had been committed or spent, what was available and whether Quimby funds were being spent within the legally mandated five year time frame.8 The audit further pointed out that the City lacked an up-to-date assessment of park, recreation and open space needs (echoing the 2006 audit findings) and generally programmed funds to individual parks or recreation facilities without specifying projects at those facilities on which funds were to be spent. This made it difficult to determine how project decisions were being made, and how priorities for parks and recreation facilities were established. Finally, the audit noted that many of the standards in the implementing legislation were out of date, resulting in an emphasis on fee payments rather than the more desirable developer dedication of sites and/or actual construction and operation of park, open space and recreation facilities.9 Concurrent with the release of these audits, the City Council adopted a series of motions calling for a review of the City s policies regarding park development.10 Audit Responses Both RAP and DCP began reporting back to the City Council, based on the motions, and reporting back to the City Controller with their responses to the audit s recommendations and the status of the implementation of those recommendations. On October 31, 2007, RAP submitted the first of 10 several responses to the various Council motions that required their response. RAP s recommendations included: A llocating additional staff to RAP and the Bureau of Engineering to develop and complete Quimby projects; S eeking DCP s assistance in modernizing the Quimby code requirements to foster more dedication, including allowing small projects to dedicate land in lieu of paying fees;11 U pdating the credit given for development and operation of recreational facilities from the current $5.00 or $2.50 per square foot; U pdating the list of high intensity and low intensity uses which may be developed for credit; odernizing the fee deferrals for affordable M housing; and H aving DCP update the Public Recreation Plan (discussed below) to, at minimum, review the service radius for parks set forth in that document. The report also noted that RAP had been making progress on a new geographic information system to help plan future Quimby expenditures and to help analyze fee collections, demographics, community needs, infrastructure needs and property availability, and had been developing a Quimby capital improvement program in conjunction with a new needs assessment, then expected to be completed in 2008.12 RAP also began periodic reporting to City Council on the status of funds and projects by Council District. On March 19, 2008, DCP reported back to City Council via the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee, recommending the formation of a DCP-RAP-City 8 Government Code Section 66477(A)(6). 9 Audit of Quimby Fees and Uses, City Controller Laura Chick, February 21, 2008, pages 1-4. 10 See Council File 05-1562. 11 Under the state law a subdivision of 50 or fewer units cannot be required to dedicate land; the City Ordinance has been read as mandating such developments to pay the fee, although it uses the same language as that in the Government Code. Government Code Section 66477(a) (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. LAMC Section 17.12(F)(1)(c) (6): In subdivisions containing 50 lots or less only the payment of fees may be required. It is clear that the City has interpreted this to mean they are precluded from obtaining dedications in subdivisions of 50 lots or less, while it can be read that they cannot mandate dedications in such situations but could negotiate for and accept dedications as an option to the payment of fees. This, obviously, is an issue for further discussion. 12 It was completed and published in 2009.

11 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements Unfortunately, aside from administrative improvements related to collection and expenditure of fees and reporting, no major legislation addressing the core limitations to Quimby has been enacted by the City of Los Angeles. Attorney Task Force to explore: Creating a mechanism to obtain park fees from apartments and condominium conversions; Updating the fee credit schedule (parallel to RAP s recommendation above); Adding flexibility to geographic restrictions; Adjusting the fee deferral for projects that include some affordable units so that the fee deferral only applies to the income-restricted units; and Exploring ways to promote land dedication from large subdivisions and development projects. DCP proposed a nine-month work program to report back to City Council with new or revised standards and ordinances. A joint DCP-RAP working group was formed and began discussing the issues raised in the motions and the audit, and also began drafting revised Quimby ordinances. The effort of the working group, which continues to meet sporadically, has been hampered by the City s budget crisis and the resulting staff reductions and re-assignments have substantially reduced the level of staff available to proceed with this effort. While RAP did complete and issue a new Needs Assessment in 2009, the task force has not moved forward any of the other suggested changes. Legislative Activity The shortcomings and limitations of the Quimby Act have been evident for some time and legislative efforts have been initiated on many occasions by the Los Angeles City Council to try to address these problems. Unfortunately, aside from administrative improvements related to collection and expenditure of fees and reporting, no major legislation addressing the core limitations to Quimby has been enacted by the City of Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief 12 The Los Angeles Ordinance implementing the Quimby Act is more restrictive that the State code... III. Limitations of Quimby he Los Angeles Ordinance implementing the Quimby Act13 is more restrictive that the State code, defining qualifying types of recreational facilities, limiting the types of facilities a developer might build to get credit against the fees, and providing such low credit values that developers are incentivized to pay the fee rather than develop park and recreational facilities, which the State Act originally expected to be the primary way in which new open space would be created. In addition, the Ordinance references the recreational element of the general plan. 14 The City in 1971 adopted a Public Recreation Plan spelling out, among other restrictions, specific distance limitations for neighborhood and community parks with a radius of one-half to one mile for the former and from one to two miles for the latter that have been used as the distance radii for parks from a site generating Quimby fees. Los Angeles Finn Ordinance applies only to a limited number of residential projects: it does not affect residential projects on land already zoned for high density development, or zoned in ways that allow either residential or non-residential use, as is the case today for most of the City s commercial zones. Thus the Finn Ordinance like the Quimby Ordinance applies largely to suburban (garden apartment) development in the least densely zoned portions of the City, primarily the central, west and far northeast San Fernando Valley, and portions of West and Southwest Los Angeles. Both the Subdivision Fees Trust fund and the Zone Change Park Fee (the depositories respectively for Quimby and Finn payments) fund schedules T provide for credits that can applied to these fees for developer-constructed recreational facilities ($5.00 per square foot for high intensity development recreational areas and $2.50 per square foot for low intensity development recreational areas ).15 These rates are set by ordinance and have not been adjusted since 1981; the general sense of many City staff is that these numbers do not reflect current construction costs and along with the ease of paying the fee rather than dedicating land are therefore a disincentive to developers building recreational facilities and instead encourage developers to simply pay the fees. Furthermore, the local Quimby and Finn Ordinances both provide deferrals for developments with affordable family units or units for elderly or handicapped persons.16 One offset is for publicly funded and appropriately covenant restricted affordable and elderly/handicapped projects. This deferral is justified on the basis that it would otherwise simply transfer a cost from one public source (park funding) to another (housing funding). Fees are deferred so long as the project s affordability and occupancy restrictions remain in effect; if the project is transferred to a non-qualified owner or the affordability and/or occupancy restrictions expire or are removed, the fee is then due under the schedule of rates then in effect. A second deferral is for projects with a minimum of 20% of the units affordable. This has been justified as an incentive for private developers to provide affordable housing. If the units (which must remain affordable for at least 10 years) revert to market rate, the fee is then due. This deferral applies to the entire project, not solely to the affordable units. Both of these deferrals further exacerbate the lack of park funding in inner 13 Ordinance 141,422, codified into Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 17.12. 14 Public Recreation Plan Section 1, a part of the Service Systems Element of the General Plan. 15 LAMC Sections 17.12(F)(1)(a) (1) through (3). Section 17.12(F)(1)(a)(4) provides a credit for any fees paid under the Finn Ordinance (LAMC Section 12.33) within the preceding five years. 16 LAMC Section 17.12(F)(9), LAMC Section 12.33(C).

13 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements city neighborhoods since, for a variety of reasons, there tends to be a concentration of affordable and elderly/handicapped housing projects and a dearth of subdivisions in these areas. The limitations identified above serve as the basis for the potential improvements that might make Quimby more relevant for generating park and recreation resources for underserved neighborhoods. However, in the long run, because of legislated intent of the California Quimby Act and constraints imposed by local policy limitations, mechanisms other than Quimby and Finn should also be considered. The limitations identified above serve as the basis for the potential improvements that might make Quimby more relevant for generating park and recreation resources for underserved neighborhoods. IV. Quimby Improvements Amend the Basic Limitations in the State Quimby Act espite Quimby s limitations, especially with regard to the need for increased park resources in areas of the City least likely to benefit from residential development and, therefore, Quimby-generated funds, the Land Trust proposes a number improvements to enhance Quimby s applicability to park poor communities. The first of these, further amending the California Quimby Act, is considered a long shot since it would require changes to state law that would primarily benefit California s largest cities, thus unlikely to generate substantial legislative support. Six additional enhancements to local Quimby policy are described below and are summarized in chart-form in Appendix A as the Land Trust s formal recommendations to improve Los Angeles existing Quimby policy. Any modifications to Los Angeles Quimby policy must ensure that incentives related to credits, fees and land dedications result in publicly accessible park and recreation infrastructure with corresponding signage and enforcement. Clearly, on at least a conceptual basis, one way of solving a number of the constraints to the use of Quimby funds would be to further amend the state enabling act. Two major changes that would eliminate the most serious constraints are to remove (1) the limitation that Quimby applies only in the case of subdivisions and (2) the restriction that prohibits use of Quimby funds for operations and maintenance. Based on the legislative record, the first potential major change eliminating the limitation that Quimby only applies to new subdivisions is considered unlikely because it would undo the primary purpose of the Act (assure new park lands to serve new residents), which is likely to be dear to the hearts of the many communities in California that are continuing to see residential subdivision activity. Such has been tried in the legislature in the past and gone nowhere. Nonetheless it may be timely to test the idea again, seeking support from major built-out cities and inner suburban communities. D

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief 14 Act may have less opposition but is still considered unlikely as many jurisdictions see Quimby as the key revenue generator for parkland acquisition. Historically other revenue sources have been available for operations and maintenance (property taxes, fees, other general fund revenues) although as municipal revenues decline as a result of the Great Recession and the impact of tax reductions over the past several years, there might be more interest in exploring this option. The legislative record on 2013 s AB 1359, which was purportedly a significant expansion in the ability to use Quimby funds, saw additional restrictions placed on the bill as it moved through the Assembly and Senate. As a result, what began as a straightforward simplification of the Quimby Act became much more complex and difficult to implement. When AB 1359 was first introduced it simply opened the opportunity to use Quimby funds in parkpoor neighborhoods. As it moved through the Assembly, and especially the Senate, several conditions were added. The most significant of them appear to be that the residents of the subdivision supplying the funds to the park-poor community can reasonably be expected to use the park facilities in the community in which they are to be placed, and a requirement that the legislative body conduct a public hearing regarding this use of the funds. It is probable that the proposal to move funds among communities would often result in people from the community whose funds are being moved to turn out to testify in opposition. Thus, while to date there has not been sufficient time to see what might result from a proposal to take advantage of AB 1359, a preliminary sense it that such transfers of funds would be rare. The second possible change to the State Quimby Local Policy Recommendation 1: Change the Service Radius Under the Quimby Act, 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 17 and the legislative body must have adopted a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities. 18 As noted above, in 1971 Los Angeles adopted (and uses to meet this requirement) a Public Recreation Plan, a part of the Service Systems Element of the General Plan; the Public Recreation Plan specifies the service areas of neighborhood parks as one-half to one mile in radius and of community parks as two miles in radius. Thus, a first step in adding flexibility to locating parks funded through Quimby could be an adjustment to the service radius. Expansion in the radius may require some type of nexus study demonstrating that (1) residents are willing to travel further to get to park and recreational facilities and/or (2) residents are already travelling further to get to park and recreational facilities. Reasons to consider an expansion of the service radius: I t expands the range of potential sites for land Thus, a first step in adding flexibility to locating parks funded through Quimby could be an adjustment to the service radius. 17 Government Code 66477(a)(5). 18 Government Code 66477(a)(4).

15 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements acquisition, perhaps including parcels that are less costly and larger than those in the midst of densely developed areas of the City; It permits an option of placing parks on the peripheries of high density communities, perhaps serving as buffers between them and lower density neighborhoods; and It reflects expanded means of travel (bicycle and transit) in many areas. In addition to the limitations of the current service radius numbers, the City Council has opted to place Quimby (and Finn) funded parks inside the Council District in which the funds are generated. RAP, furthermore, in an effort to maximize the acreage it can acquire and minimize the potential for litigation over its acquisition efforts, is reluctant to attempt to acquire land from other than willing sellers; these factors, combined with the limited service radius, have tended to stymie parkland acquisition. Local Policy Recommendation 2: Add to the Definition of Qualifying Parks Los Angeles Public Recreation Plan does not clearly address parks other than neighborhood and community parks; it can therefore be argued that only neighborhood and community parks are eligible for Quimby funding. Another option would be to amend the Public Recreation Plan to clearly allow regional parks (which are mentioned but given no standards) to be considered eligible for Quimby funding. This would require a determination of an appropriate distance factor, or the use of a standard such as the relevant community plan area or park shed for clusters of communities. In addition, RAP develops specialized parks including skateboard parks and park-like facilities such as recreation centers and swimming pools. These types of facilities, in addition to community gardens and walking/bike trail segments that link to parks and recreation centers, could also be redefined to be eligible for the use of Quimby funds. Reasons to consider an expansion of the qualifying park types: L ike the expansion of the service radius, it expands the range of potential sites for land acquisition, perhaps including parcels that are less costly and more appropriate for open space and recreational uses; and I t recognizes that there are roles for more varied types of parks to address specific needs and desires of individual communities. Local Policy Recommendation 3: Change Credits for On-Site Recreational Amenities The City s Quimby and Finn Ordinances provide specific credits for on-site park and recreational amenities in the amount of $5.00 per square foot for high intensity recreational facilities and $2.50 per square foot for low intensity recreational facilities. The Ordinances also spell out what constitute high intensity and low intensity uses. The dollar amounts of the credits have not been revised since 1981 and do not encourage developers to provide recreational facilities rather than pay the fees. Further, the limited list of qualifying facilities also constrains a developer s willingness to provide recreational facilities for credit. Currently, swimming pools; tennis, volleyball and basketball courts; child s play areas; putting greens; landscaped areas and athletic fields including equestrian areas are identified in the City s Quimby and Finn Ordinances; amenities being sought by many urban residents such as gyms, exercise equipment areas, running tracks and community gardens19 are not, to cite some examples. Neither the Quimby Act nor the authorizing credit language of the City s Quimby Ordinance mandate the dollar amounts that are set forth in the referenced section.20 Reasons to consider an adjustment to the credit: Most developers already provide a limited array of on-site recreational facilities (these are designed specifically to meet the City s on site open space zoning regulations); Many developers would enjoy the control it

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief would give them of selecting the type and placement of recreational facilities; It recognizes that there are roles for more varied types of recreational facilities to address specific needs and desires of individual communities; The timing of the provision of recreational facilities is in the hands of the developer, not the City, so it is more likely that providing such facilities would coincide with the opening of the new residential development and the increased demand generated by new residents; and Developers have a strong incentive to maintain and manage their facilities, while the City s limited resources have meant reductions in maintenance and operating funds for public parks and the quality of maintenance. Local Policy Recommendation 4: Adjust Fee Deferrals for Affordable and Senior Housing As noted above, fee deferrals are provided under the Quimby and Finn Ordinances for residential projects with units restricted to occupancy by seniors, the handicapped, or by low- and/or moderate-income households. Projects with certain kinds of public funding and are 100% restricted as to occupancy have the park fees deferred for the life of the project (or until the ownership changes to a non-qualifying party or the units cease to be restricted), other projects have the park fees deferred for the entire project when a minimum of 20% of the units are income restricted for at least 10 years (the deferral ends if the affordability restriction ends). These deferrals were intended to reduce impediments to and thus encourage development of occupancy-restricted housing but result in 16 further reducing revenues for parks and recreational facilities in low-income and inner city communities which tend to receive a disproportionate share of such housing. While these deferrals should probably remain in place for non-profit entities whose primary role is the production of affordable housing, removing the deferral for market rate units in other mixed income housing should be considered. In addition, consideration should be given to a minimum length of affordability (say 55 years) for a project to qualify for a deferral. Reasons to consider modifying the restricted housing deferrals: T he deferral of park fees for affordable housing ostensibly is to promote the development of such housing; park fees are not deferred for stand-alone market rate units, so creation of market rate housing as part of a mixed income development does not appear to merit a deferral of park fees; I t would help to assure that the intended goal fostering the creation of affordable housing delivers housing that will remain affordable for a reasonable period of time; and I t could result in more park resources in communities with concentrations of affordable housing. Local Policy Recommendation 5: Encourage Land Dedication Both the State Quimby Act and the City s enabling Ordinances allow either land dedication or fee payment; both also say that only a fee can be required for projects with 50 or fewer units. However, dedications setting aside a portion of the land within the proposed 19 T he State Quimby Act allows for the inclusion of recreational community gardening under its definition of eligible park and recreation purposes (Section 66477(f). 20 Government Code 66477(a)(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. LAMC Section 17.12(F)(1): Where private facilities for park and recreational purposes are provided in a proposed subdivision and such facilities are to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, the areas occupied by such facilities shall be credited against the requirement of dedication of land for park and recreational purposes or the payment of fees in lieu thereof, provided the Advisory Agency finds it is in the public interest to do so and that the following standards are met: (1) that each facility is available for use by all the residents of the subdivision and (2) that the area and the facilities satisfy the recreation and park needs of the subdivision so as to reduce the need for public recreation and park facilities to serve the subdivision residents.

17 Creating New Urban Park Space in Los Angeles: An Analysis of the Current Quimby Ordinance and Recommended Improvements subdivision are generally not pursued by developers because their proposed projects have gone through an intensive design process before being submitted to the City for approval; dedications of this type would likely require costly redesign if they had not been considered early in the design and layout process. Previous recommendations by City staff regarding Quimby have specified that developers be required to undergo an early consultation with RAP and possibly DCP to discuss dedication options and have written documentation of the consultation and its results submitted to DCP when a land use entitlement application is submitted. As an alternative to on-site dedication, publicly accessible off-site dedication should be both allowed and encouraged. Under this approach a developer could agree to provide a park site (within the expanded radius limits discussed above) in a park-poor community, though still meeting the reasonable relationship between the subdivision and the park site required by the Quimby Act. Alternatively, a developer could work with a local non-profit open space or development corporation to fund site acquisition and park development by that entity, after which the park could be transferred to the City or retained and managed by the local entity on the City s behalf. The actual cost of the acquisition and development would need to be comparable to the Quimby fee that would otherwise be required, although additional credit should be considered if the developer also contributed to the maintenance and operation of the park. Having a more realistic credit for actual land and development costs/values could make dedication a more realistic option since the fee schedules today do not provide an incentive for a developer to consider land dedication. Further incentives could come from a valuation process that would reward a developer for (1) dedicating land, (2) constructing recreational facilities that reflect the needs identified in the City s Needs Assessment, (3) providing recreational facilities and open space that are accessible to the public as well as to residents of the contributing subdivision and (4) crediting developers for maintenance and operation of provided recreational facilities. Increased use of development agreements with subdivision developers may also be a way to negotiate more dedications or recreational facility construction and operation. Reasons to consider fostering land dedication: I t provides more options to the development community; I t helps to assure that park sites become available in high-land-cost areas; and T he higher likelihood of sites becoming available early in the development process could mean parks actually come into being in a shorter time frame. Local Policy Recommendation 6: Adjust Fee Schedules for In Lieu Fee Payments Although the Quimby/Finn in lieu fees are adjusted annually to account for inflation and market changes, many consider them to still be out of date and unrealistically low. They do not accurately reflect land values nor do they factor park development costs into the fee structure. Previous City staff recommendations have also suggested an impact fee analysis by a third-party expert to address these questions. Reasons to consider modifying the in lieu fee schedule: The current fee schedule is decidedly out of date; and The City is potentially leaving resources on the table, exacerbating the shortage of park expansion.

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust Policy Brief 18 V. Other Options: Mitigation Fees iven Quimby s fundamental limitations vis-a-vis the resource needs of park poor communities, the City of Los Angeles should consider adopting mitigation fees to fund park acquisition and development as well as maintenance and operation. Unlike Quimby, mitigation fees would not be limited only to development resulting from subdivisions, but could be applied to any type of development that generates the need for additional parks and recreation space. Many jurisdictions in California have moved to using mitigation fees as the best practice for deriving revenues to offset the impacts of development. Among the California cities using impact fees are Glendale, Long Beach, Pasadena, Sacramento and San Jose. These cities also continue to carry Quimby regulations and use them where dedication is considered a viable option. The City of Glendale provides an instructive example of how this plays out in practice. In a December 2010 report to the Glendale City Council, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department outlined Development Impact Fee revenues collected in fiscal year 2009-2010. It reported on both Park Mitigation Fees and Quimby Fees, with the former generating $1,038,914.88 and the latter $0.00. While current economic conditions and attitudes regarding new public funding streams may make it difficult to adopt new fees in the short term, mitigation fees offer the long-term potential to generate needed park revenues for the most underserved areas of Los Angeles. Some years ago, the Los Angeles City Attorney opined that Quimby must be applied to subdivisions and, by extension, mitigation fees cannot. However, in at least one case in which this issue was litigated (Homebuilders Association of Tulare v. City of Lemoore, 185 Cal. App. 4th 554 [Cal. Ct. App. 2010]) the Court held that a community s recreation facility impact fee was not pre-empted by the G Quimby Act.21 Indeed, Los Angeles own Park First Program22 is a step in that direction. Reasons to consider moving to a mitigation fee: It is consistent with practices in other communities in California; It eliminates the constraint of applying only to subdivisions and, in the case of the Finn Ordinance, only to zone changes, leveling the playing field that all residential development generates park demand independent of the mechanism through which the development was authorized (subdivision, zone change, etc.); With appropriate current analysis it would allow for a more up-to-date fee schedule; It can be applied to non-residential as well as residential development (with appropriate findings); and It can be designed to cover operations and maintenance as well as park acquisition and development. 21 S ee http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/f057671m.pdf 22 A part of the Vermont-Western Transit Oriented District Station Neighborhood Area Plan.