HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10071997 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF,DIRECTOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1997
SUBJECT: NEW PARK DEDICATION FUND DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT report from GMEDA Director regarding new procedures for disbursement of park funds
and DIRECT GMEDA Director to implement the procedures with appropriate departments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Administrative costs related to these procedures are included in the recommendations and should
prevent an impact to the departments.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On May 13, 1997,the Board of Supervisors received a proposal from staff for park fee procedures
in collecting, distributing and monitoring park fees. The work product was produced in response
to problems that occurred in disbursement of funds anticipated by Alamo R-7A to Danville. Upon
examination, it was concluded that (1) the procedure in place was not suitable to maintain strict
monitoring of funds,(2)there was no mechanism for dispute resolution, (3)there was no consistent
point at which funds were proposed for specific projects, (4) there was no mechanism for use of
funds in areas that had no service area or adjacent city, and(5) while nexus existed between fees
and parks,it was not explicit and the county could be uncertain about whether the dedication would
include fees, land or credits for facilities even after permits had been issued and units completed.
The intent was not to undermine existing park disbursement activities that worked well, but to
provide additional predictability, certainty, and reliability to the process. A report was provided to
the Board on September 25, 1996 and action taken by the Board on October 8, 1996 to direct staff
to develop new procedures.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:I�G
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON O c t o b e r 7 , 19 9 7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER_x
Following presentation and discussion of the above item, and on the motion
by Supervisor Uilkema , the Board APPROVED "the staff recommendations with the
addition to paragraph 3d of Attachment 1 , as approved by the Board .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON
THE DATE SHOWN.
AYES: NOES:
ATTESTED October 7 , 1997
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
PHIL BATCHEL9,R,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPER RSCOUNTY� STRATOR
0
BY ,
VA:dg DEP
parkfnd2.bo
Contact: Val Alexeeff(646-1620)
CC: County Administrator
County Counsel
GMEDA Departments
Y f
Board Order-Park Fund Disbursement 10/7/97 Page 2
The proposal resulted from efforts by GMEDA departments, Auditor, County Counsel, and CAO.
It is included as Attachment 1 and contains revisions from the original draft based on comments
received from the sources identified below. This proposal was intended to implement county
ordinance and the Quimby Act, as well as be consistent with general plan policies as found in
Attachment 2. The Board requested that the proposal be circulated to interested parties and an
additional sixty days was given for response. Written responses were received from Alamo R-7A,
El Sobrante Service Area R-9,El Sobrante MAC, Oakley MAC, and Danville. A summary of their
comments and our responses is provided below. A complete list of comments and responses is
attached as Attachment 3.
Upon adoption of this proposal, staff will proceed with implementation.
Summary of comments and response from Alamo R-7A
Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee was pleased by the effort. They requested that Alamo
funds stay within Alamo and that they be given some flexibility due to their multiple programs. The
guidelines can be developed to provide substantial support on both points without eliminating Board
discretion.
Summary of comments and response from Oakley MAC
The OMAC requested up-to-date accounting of fees, along with specific text changes. They also
requested to be kept informed about this process. Changes were identified to clarify language,
maintain OMAC review authority, maintain consistency with the locally adopted master plan, and
support proper accounting. OMAC's extensive recommendations to the text of the proposal seek
support for their parks master plan and to allow the committee to make the final decision on funds.
While recognizing and supporting OMAC as the voice of the community, the proposal retains final
decision making by the Board.
Summary of comments and response from Danville
Danville suggested changes in the guidelines, text and other clarifications.
Summary of comments and response from El Sobrante Service Area R-9
The R-9 district CAC raised questions and offered recommendations. The questions addressed why
the process is taking place, how the procedure will affect the advisory committees, what follow up
actions will occur,what costs are associated with the procedure, and what groups will be included
as recipients. They also asked about a master plan and the process of transferring funds. The R-9
district CAC also made recommendations to the text of the proposal. Responses were made to all
comments, many recommendations incorporated into the text, and explanations given for those
recommendations not incorporated. R-9 CAC was assured that their role or priority would not be
diminished.
Summary of comments and response from El Sobrante MAC
The El Sobrante MAC expressed concerns about the method by which staff developed the proposal.
They did not address the text of the proposal. Objection was made that sixty days was not enough
time for review. They were provided with a lengthy response regarding the nature of the process
and the role of citizen participation.
r T i 1
4 •,1
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED PARK FEE PROCESS
FOR COLLECTION, DISTRIBUTION
AND MONITORING
1. Subdivision approval includes an . advisory of the park fee ordinance
requirement. The approval should=go further and include a condition on the
park facility options and preferences for the property. TheNll. evelopers ofbhe
ro osed subdivision ma submit ark facili o tionsand references for the
P
property, however, primary consideration ofstaff, Planning Commission, and
Board of Supervisors, shall be giveri to the wishes'of the citizens' body of the _
community that is',responsble for the :;parks' facilities, if,one exists The'
purpose'of flits condition is to:_allow the community tocontribWto the decision
making process in keepug with the planning of the community's Parks Master
Plan, e g , using in lieu fees for planned parks' facilities that are `awaiting
adequate funds for development,and/or,completion If the subdiuisiori is topay
m'lieu fees, and options-for;expendture of diose fees have been recommended
by the citizens' body Those;recommendations-should be officially considered.
a-ill,4L,,;SiOnisto pay.in-lieu fees, the appropriate option s for expend
of those fees should be At the time of project review, interested
parties in the vicinity shall be notified of the potential existence of funds and/or
facilities. Final nap review should incorporate total land and fees to be
provided and the expectation of how and where those fees will be structured.
There should also be an estimate of when land will be accepted and when fees
will be spent. Should a park proposal be identified and accepted from a district,
city or other public entity, such entity shall be notified prior to ripen final
approval of the subdivision map for comment' o ensure compatibility of plans
an, :,-.-.expectations.
2. A park account will be established for all subdivisions that have been approved
for the payment ofin-lieu fees. The planning sheet for the account will indicate
census tract location of the project, number of units, and fees anticipated based
on land/unit formula. The sheet shall be used to monitor timeframe for
expenditure of funds.
3. Funds to be disbursed from the park account shall be distributed to one of
sevV ral potential t�re-€ai�e��ingrecipients. The inten. of this distribution process
is to find a recipient who is accountable,.who_can provide facilrties close to the;
development that
Is'..generating tie-,fees, and�.who can=work`with the community
VA:dg
parkfees 2
(rev.8/21/97)
A.
to identify and meet local needs.'Whee such a.,process is; m place, .only:
extraor"denary circumstances would-direct funds elsewhere .Local:committee
aril councils.will be:depended upon to identify loealneeds and priorities as
input into forming appropriate condition of approval forahe project
a. A special district within the census tract of the subdivision that oversees
development and maintenance of park facilities Priority will be given to
the recommendation of Board appointed citizen advisory groups or
IVIACS-chargedwith developing parks
b. A city or appropriate government agency that has been determined to
provide park and ride facilities within the census area. (R 9 requests
deletion, however, many cities are current recipients ,Therefore, this
option,cannot be deleted:)
C. An organization that may be an incorporated non-profit that is developing
facilities within the census area.
d. Should none of the entities above within or adjat,,ent;to.the census tract be
interested, funds may be distributed outside the census tract provided a
nexus can be demonstrated to the land paying the fee, e.g. soccer or
baseball fields proximate to the subdivision as defined by league
boundaries and accessibility to the general public outside league play
times as approved by the Board.
e. Competing proposals will be evaluated for proximity to the development,
benefit to residents, and universality of access, as determined by the
Community Development Director. Where a local'services district CAC,
exists,their recommendation'shall be requested and,incorporated rnto the
consideration:
Park fees can be expended upon the following:
a. Purchase of land.
b. Purchase or improvement of park and recreational facilities.
VA:dg
parkfees 3
(rev.8121197)
• r t
C. Purchase of infrastructure, such as drainage lines or bridges, necessary
for a specific park site.
d. Park and recreational facilities' design.
The intent of these funds is to provide funding for facility development and
improvement, not employee salaries or routine maintenance.
4. In order to receive commitment from the County, entities and interested parties
shall submit the following information:
a. Description of current and proposed facilities.
b. Location where the funds will be used.
C. Cost of the project and other contributions.
d. Statement of how this project will benefit fee-paying residents.
e. Description of proposed improvements.
f. Timetable for expenditure of funds.
g. Description of property to be acquired.
5. The County may elect to require review of proposals, plans, and cost estimates
by an appropriate professional to review costs and design at the applicant's
expense.
6. To receive payment, an invoice must be submitted and the information listed
above current or by prior agreement Other:payment methods may also be
employed
7. The developer may elect to build facilities which will necessitate a work
program, cost estimates, and agreement from participating entities. Where a
master plan is m place and a citizen advisory committee is authorized to conduct
park planning,the developer's plans'shall be reviewed for consistency with these
VA:dg
parkfees 4
(rev.8/21/97)
plans i..'Plans to be reviewed for developer construction and receipt of credit shall
follow flood control procedure.
8. Fund transfers shall be subject to audit and proof of completion.
9. Theadditional-administration of park fees vv'hieh administrative use of in-lieu
fees, not to exceedl S% of the„interest on=current acZ.counts; by the county may
include,
a. Communication with interested parties in ways such as newsletters,
public forums, interviews, and so forth.
b. Facility organization such as master plans, park evaluations, and similar
management tools.
C. Review of proposals through review of parcels or other means.
d. Administrative oversight such as setting up files and accounts,tabulating
data, monitoring timeframes, and checking invoices.
e.
These activities will be reimbursed to actual timesheets and hmiees fi-Om
no morc than 1556 of the interest on current accounts.
10. Special projects by the Board that can be shown to benefit park and recreation
services in the unincorporated area may also utilize specific amounts of park
dedication interest, e.g. parks master plan.
11. Semi-annual reports onahe firiancialaccounts;,wluch shall include all developer
paid fees and all• expenses (including administrative fees reimbursed to:the
county); shall be p"resented by county staff to the entity of the community Ghat
is-responsible forahe planning of.parks' facilities •(e,g ,:1Vlunicipal Advisory
CO
12. The proposed guidines w2111ncorporate any pre existing agreements currently
el
governing the distribution of m he fees All such agreements shall be reviewed
for tunelines; disbursement procedures,.and accountability
VA:dg
parkfees 5
(rev.8/21/97)
ATTACHMENT 1A
REPORT ON ALAMO PARKS FUNDS
BY VAL ALEXEEFF, Director
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency
September 25, 1996
FINDINGS:
• In Fiscal Year 1994-95, approximately $239,670 were transferred from Alamo
account (2758) to Danville account (3551.3). In addition,. $22,125 was
transferred from Alamo account to the SRVFPD.
• The transfer occurred because there were no strict policies regarding inter-fund
transfer in parks. It was a process used in the past to aid cash flow-
• While the finds have been disbursed in a less-than-formal manner, all finds
have been spent on parks and no finds have been "lost".
• In Fiscal Year 1992-93, funds were transferred into Alamo accounts from
unreferenced fees, including unincorporated developments outside Alamo
(R-7A). This amounted to approximately $172,778. We have verified that
$69,800 was from developments outside Alamo, i.e. Walnut Creek sphere of
influence, and Diablo.
• In Fiscal Year 1.991-92, approximately $50,670 was transferred to Danville for
construction of Hap Magee Park.
RECOMMENDA TIONS:
1. Transfer all finds collected in census account 3551.3 into an Alamo account
until approximately $261,795 is reimbursed to Alamo (actual amount
determined by Auditor).
2. Not pay interest, since funds were used directly and not held for interest.
Neither Danville nor the County has set aside finds for interest and no legal
basis exists to provide interest.
VA:dg
alanio2519 1
(9/25;96)
► J
r+
x
3. Transfer$145,000 as soon as possible from account 3551 .3 to Alamo accounts.
4. No reimbursement to Alamo for funds transferred to Danville in FYI 991-92.
5. No reimbursement went to other accounts for funds transferred to Alamo in
FY1992-93.
6. Beginning with the current Fiscal Year, treat park finds in a manner similar to
AOB fees or special district accounts. Funds shall be administered under
standard auditing procedures. Any movement of park fiords out of accounts or
between accounts will follow auditing procedures.
7. Make decisions, regarding distribution of fiords, at the time of project approval.
A plan should be provided indicating land dedication, private facility
construction, public facility construction, and payment of in-lieu fees. Where
payment of in-lieu fees is proposed, the recipient of these fees should also be
identified.
8. Determine overhead charge for administration of accounts or audits. Currently,
there is no charge and this has caused park fluids' administration to occur on
a time-available basis. While the overhead should be minimal, it can provide
a dedicated individual to perform tasks, ' including monthly statements to
appropriate parties.
9. Require reports on use of funds from agencies receiving fiends.
BACKGROUND:
In 1985, the County began collecting developer fees in the Alamo/Danville/Walnut
Creek area. The Planning Department, at the tune, created a procedure of collecting
funds by census tract and allocating those fiulds nornally within the census tract to
a responsible government agency. Supervisors or other bodies, such as EBRPD could
make requests for specific projects and they would be granted, if fiords were in the
account.
The operation consisted of informal policies with no strict policies or requirements,
with exception that there had to be some related benefit (nexus) between fees collected
for development impact and the need to offset the impact.
vn:dg
adamo25,0 z
(9/25/96)
1
1
C � 1
v�
Oil occasion, there were cash flow problems where development fees would not match
park construction deadlines and under those circumstances, internal lending would
take place. Since no jurisdiction, besides the County, was entitled to the fiords, the
internal system did not violate any requirements. The person who set this up and was
responsible for administration, dedicating vast amounts of his time and generating
local needs, was Dennis Franzen. When Dennis passed away, the continuation of the
program lie created was impossible due to time and budget constraints—
administration costs were not covered. The distribution of fiends occurred on a request
basis with no coordinated program.
With respect to Alamo, the most aggressive park programs were found in Walnut
Creek and in Danville. The most intense and specific demand came from youth sports
leagues who sought fields for youth baseball and youth soccer.
To the extent that Alamo youth from new developments wished to play in athletic
leagues using fields in adjacent communities, a nexus could be made.
Alamo does not have a program to develop park facilities within specific census tracts.
Instead, Alamo has a services' district, R-A, that is responsible for developing and
maintaining Alamo park facilities. Alamo's intent is to have all fiends collected within
census tracts located within R-7A boundaries to be spent within R-7A district as a -
whole. In this way, finds can be spent outside the census tract, but still within R-7A.
While investigating the collection of finds, we found that census tract boundaries
changed between 1980 and 1990. Additionally, Alamo area census tracts extend
beyond R-7A. Funds have been collected outside R-7A that have been credited to
Alamo. Since the distribution of park dedication funds has been handled in an
i nforllal mariner, neither R-7A nor other jurisdictions know what to expect. Policies
are needed to falfill expectations.
While there may be disagreement on how the finds were distributed, all funds are
accounted for. Furthennore, no administrative expenses have been charged to
accounts, despite the staff time involved.
vn:d€
.Mani 25.iv
GENERAL PROVISIONS 918-2.002-920-2.006
ATTACHMENT 2
ent
end
in Division 920
of
ite PARK DEDICATIONS
Chapters:
920-2 General
920.4 Requirements
920.6 Standard for Areas and Fees
920-8 Credit and Private Space
920.10 Use and Time limits
920.12 Procedures
Chapter 920-2
t GENERAL
Sections:
920-2.002 Authority.
920-2.004 Plan.
920-2.006 Regulation.
920-2.002 Authority. This division is
enacted pursuant to the authority granted by
Government Code Section 66477 and the
Constitution of the state.(Ord.78-5).
920.2.004 Plan. The park and recreational
facilities, for which dedication of land and/or
us payment of a fee are required, shall be in
eaccordance with the recreation element of the
to general plan.(Ord.78-5).
920-2.006 Regulation. The board may from
ses time to time, by resolution, issue regulations to
r a -establish administration, procedures,
len interpretation and policy direction under this
:he division.(Ord. 78-5).
of
fa
:he
ide _
its. _
ide
ten
440'5 (Contra Costa County 12-80
r
REQUIREMENTS 920-4.002-920-6.206
Chapter 9204 9204.008 Disaster. A permit to repair or
i rebuild a dwelling unit which was damaged by
REQUIREMENTS fire, act of God, or other natural disaster, shall
be exempt from the provisions of this division
if the permit is applied for within one year of
Sections: the damage or destruction. (Ord. 84-46 § 1:
920-4.002 Subdivisions. formerly code § 920-12.014: Ord. 78-5).
920-4.004 Single parcel development.
920-4.006 Exemptions and proviso.
920-4.008 Disaster. Chapter 920-6
STANDARDS FOR AREA AND FEES
920-4.002 Subdivisions. As a condition of
approval of a preliminary or final development
plan, tentative or final map or parcel map Article 920-6.2 General
(which are hereinafter referred to as develop- Sections:
ment), the developer of land for residential use, 920-6.202 Dedication.
excluding that land which is exempt as pro- 920.6.204 Amount of fee.
vided in the Subdivision Map Act, shall dedicate 920-6.206 Combination.-
land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combina- Article 9206.4 Greater Alamo Area
tion of both, for neighborhood and community Sections:
park or recreational purposes. (Ords. 84-46 § 1 920.6.402 Dedication.
(part), 78-5). 920-6.404 Amount of fee.
t Article 920.6.6 East County Area
920-4.004 Single parcel development. As a Sections:
condition of approval of any permit to build a 920-6.602 Amount of fee.
principal residential structure, including, but
not limited to, a multiple-family structure or Article 920-6.2
trailer (mobile home) park,an owner shall pay a General
fee for neighborhood and community park or
recreational purposes in accordance with the 920-6.202 Dedication. Except as otherwise
same standards as if a final map or.parcel map provided in this chapter for specifically describ-
were required. (Ords. 84-46 § 1 (part), 78-5). ed territory, the total area required to be
dedicated shall be computed by multiplying
920-4.006 Exemptions and proviso. (a)The the number of dwelling units to be included in
provisions of this division do not apply to: the development by three hundred fifty square
(1) Subdivisions containing less than five par- feet. As used in this division, "dwelling unit"
cels and not used for residential purposes; means a building or a portion thereof, or a
(2) Commercial or industrial subdivisions; mobile home, designed for residential occu-
(3) Condominium projects or stock cooper pation by one person or a group of two or
atives which consist of the subdivision of air- more persons living together as a domestic
space in an existing apartment building which is unit. (Orris. 86-60 § 2, 84-46 § 1 (part), 78-5).
more than five years old when no new dwelling
units are added. 9246.204 Amount of fee. Except as other-
(b) Provided, however, that if a building per- wise provided in this chapter for specifically
mit is requested for construction of a residential described territory, when fees are to be paid in
structure or structures on one or more of the lieu of land dedication, such fees shall be two
parcels exempted by subsection (a) of this thousand dollars per dwelling unit. (Ords. 90-17
section, the fee shall be required to be paid by § 2,86-60 § 2,84-46 § 1,78-5).
the owner of each such parcel as a condition to
the issuance of such permit. (Ords. 84-46 § 1 9206.206 Combination. A combination of
(part), 78-5). fee payment and land dedication is permissible
if approved by the planning agency. (Ords.
86-60 § 2,84-46 § 1 (part),78-5).
441 (Contra Costa County 6-90)
920-6.402-920-8.006 SUBDIVISIONS
Article ,920-6.4 agency, against the payment of fees or dedica- -
Greater Alamo Area tion of land required by this division. (Ord.
920-6.402 Dedication. Within the territory 84-46 § 1 (part)).
in the unincorporated area of this county within 920-8.004 Partial credit for private space.
Federal Census Tracts No. 3420, 3440, 3452.01, Where private area for park and recreational pur-
3461.01, 3461.02, 3462.01 and 3462.02, poses is provided in a proposed development and
based on the 1980 federal census, the total such area is to be privately owned and main-
area required to be dedicated shall be com- tained by the future owner(s) of the develop-
puted by multiplying the number of dwelling ment, partial credit may be given by the plan-
units to be included in the development by ning agency not to exceed fifty percent against
four hundred square feet. (Ord. 86-60 § 2). the requirement of land dedication or payment
of fees in lieu thereof if the planning agency
920-6.404 Amount of fee. Within the finds that it is in the public interest to do so
territory in the unincorporated area of this and that all the standards set forth in Section
county within the Federal Census Tracts 920-8.006 are met. (Ords. 84-46 § 1- (part),
enumerated in Section 920-6.402, when fees 78-5)•
are to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such
fees shall be one thousand one hundred dollars 920-8.006 Standards. The standards are:
per dwelling unit. (Ord. 86-60 § 2). (1) Yards, court areas, setbacks and other
open areas required to be maintained by the
Article 920-6.6 zoning and building ordinances and regulations
East County Area shall not be included in the.computation of such
priyate areas;and
920.6.602 Amount of fee. Within the terri- (2) The private ownership and maintenance
tory in the unincorporated area of this county of the area is adequately provided for by
within the territorial jurisdiction of the East recorded written agreement, covenants or
County Regional Planning Commission,described restrictions;and
in Section 26-2.1512, when fees are to be paid (3) The use of the private area is restricted
in lieu of land dedication, such fees shall be one for park and recreational purposes by recorded
thousand three hundred fifty dollars per covenants which run with the land in favor of
dwelling unit. (Ord.90-6 § 2,87-81 § 2). the future owners of property within the tract
and which cannot be amended or eliminated
without the consent of the county, or its succes-
Chapter 920-8 sor• and
CREDIT AND PRIVATE SPACE (4) The proposed private area is reasonably
adaptable for use for park or recrdational pur-
poses, taking into consideration such factors as
Sections: size, shape, topography, geology, access and
location;and.
920-8.002 Public improvements credit. (5) Facilities proposed for the area are in sub-
920-8.004 Partial credit for private stantial accordance with the provisions of the
space. recreational element of the general plan; and
920-8.006 Standards. (6) The area for which credit is given is a
minimum of two contiguous acres and provides
920-8.002 Public improvements credit. If a minimum of four of the local park basic ele-
the subdivider provides park and recreational ments listed below, or other recreational
improvements to land dedicated for public park improvements that will meet the specific recrea-
purposes, the value of the improvements tion park needs of the future residents of the
together with any equipment located thereon area:
shall be a credit, as determined by the planning
(Contra Costa County 6-90) 11442
`f USE AND TIME LIMITS 920-10.002-920-10.004
Criteria List Acres
(A) Children's play apparatus
area SO — .75
(B) Landscape park-like
and quiet area .50 — 1.00
(C) Family picnic area .25 — .75
(D) Game court area .25 — .50
(E) Turf playfield 1.00 - 3.00
(F) Swim pool(42 ft. x
75 ft. with adja-
cent deck and
lawn area) .25 — .50
(G) Recreation center
building .15 — .25
(H) Recreation community
gardening .10 — .25
(Ords. 846 § 1 (part), 78-5).
Chapter 920-10
.USE AND TIME LIMITS
Sections:
920-10.002 Use of land and fees.
920-10.004 Establishment and
development time.
920-10.006 Hold or transfer.
920-10.002 Use of land and fees. The land,
fees or combination thereof are to be used only
for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitat-
ing existing park or recreation facilities which
will serve future residents of such development;
but if the county general plan or a specific plan
contemplates a larger or more significant recrea-
tion development(such as an area or community
park) which will serve an area including the
development, the dedicated land or fees may be
devoted to such use. (Ords. 84-46 § 1 (part),
78-5).
920-10.004 Establishment and development
time. The planning agency, in agreement with
the local agency having park responsibility, if
available, shall assure the establishment and de-
velopment of the park and recreational facilities
as the area develops and such facilities become
necessary. A schedule for use of the funds will
be maintained by the planning department.
(Ords. 84-46 § 1 (part), 78-5).
442-1 (Contra Costa County 11-86)
PROCEDUK 920-10.006-920-12.012
920-10.006 Hold or transfer. All land so combination with dedicated lands in the
dedicated or fees paid shall be held by the formation of local park and recreation facilities;
county only for such purpose, but the county and
may transfer such land and/or fees to a local (5) The space or local recreation facilities to
agency having authority to develop new or re- be privately owned and maintained by future
habilitate existing park and recreation services residents of the development.(Ord.78-5).
in the area. (Ords. 84-46 § 1 (part), 78-5).
920-12.006 Prerequisite for approval of
final map, parcel map, or building permit. (a)
Chapter 920-12 Land. When land is to be dedicated, it shall be
offered for dedication in substantially the same
PROCEDURES manner as for streets and other easements.
(b) Fees. When a fee is required, it shall be
Sections: paid to the county prior to approval of the final
920-12.002 General. map, parcel map, or building permit, whichever
920-12.004 Decision—Factors. first occurs. Fees shall be placed in a local park
920-12.006 Prerequisite for approval or recreation facilities trust fund. (Ord. 78-5).
of final map,parcel map,
or building permit. 920-12.008 Trust — Administration. The
920-12.008 Trust—Administration. land and fees shall be held in trust by the county
920-12.010 Agency for development until the county transfers such responsibility to
and maintenance. a county service area, district, city, or
920-12.012 Refunds. association. If the recreation element of the
general plan does not indicate the area of benefit
and contribution for the specific park required
920-12.002 General. At the time of filing a s to serve a development, an appropriate
tentative map or. other development for amendment will be prepared to so delineate an
approval, the developer shall, as a part of such area, or a specific plan for such area may be
t filing, indicate- whether he prefers to dedicate developed. (Ord. 78-5).
land for park-and-recreation purposes,or to pay
a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of 920.12.010 Agency for development and
these. If he prefers to dedicate land, he shall sug- maintenance. The planning agency shall
gest the specific land. Only the payment of fees designate a public agency (city, service area,
is required for subdivisions containing fifty district or other) to be responsible for
parcels or less. (Ords. 84-46 § 2, 78-5). development and maintenance of the park.If no
such agency is available to assume such
920-12.004 Decision —Factors.At the time responsibility, the planning agency shall require
of initial development approval, the planning the developer to annex, to or to form an
agency shall determine whether to require a appropriate agency, unless waived by the
dedication of .land within the development, planning agency. When such a public agency is
payment of a . fee in lieu thereof, or a designated for the area,the land and fees may be
combination of both. In making this conveyed to such agency by the county for the
determination, the agency shall consider the purposes herein enumerated. (Ord. 78-5).
following factors:
(1) Lands offered for dedication will 920-12.012 Refunds. (a) If a final
substantially comply with the recreation subdivision map or parcel map is vacated,and if
element of the general plan; the county still retains the land or fees, and if y
(2) The topography, soils, soil stablity, the applicant so requests, the director of
drainage, access, location and general utility of planning shall order return to him of such land
land in the development available for dedication; or fees.
(3) The size and shape of the development (b) If a building permit is cancelled or
and land available for dedication; voided, and if the county still retains the fee,
(4) How much land consisting of school and if the applicant so requests, the director
playgrounds or public park lands is available for of planning shall order return to him of such
fee. (Ords. 84-46 § 3, 78-5).
443 (Contra Costa County 4-85)
ATTACHMENT 2A
1996 EDITION
EXCERPT ON QUIMBY ACT
California Land Use
and Planning Law
Daniel J. Curtin,Jr.
Solano Press Books
Point Arena, California ,
Aa
�r
CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW — 1996 Edition
3. Major provisions contained in the Map Act by
which conditions may be imposed by local ordinance
or which are required by the Map Act itself
a. Parkland dedication Gov't Code § 66477 (Quimby Act). A city may,
by ordinance,require the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational
purposes. Gov't Code § 66477.Associated Home Builders, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4
Cal. 3d 633 (1971). However, before such a condition can be validly attached to the
approval of a map,certain criteria must be met:
■ The ordinance must be in effect for a period of 30 days before filing of the ten-
tative or parcel map;
Quantity ■ The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the proportion
of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the fee to be paid. The
"standards"provisions provide for a formula of only three acres of park area
per 1,000 persons,with certain exceptions;
Nexus ■ The land or fees are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or reha-
bilitating park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision,and the amount
and location of land to be dedicated or amount of fees paid shall bear a reason-
able relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future
inhabitants of the subdivision.In Walnut Creek,the court did not put a strict
limitation on this criteria.It stated that the fees are justified if used for park and
recreational facilities generally,but not exclusively,available to subdivision res-
idents.Walnut Creek,4 Cal.3d at 640 n.5;
G nsistent with plan ■ The legislative body,must have a general plan or specific plan containing poli-
cies and standards for park and recreational facilities in accordance with
definite principles and standards;
Capital Improvement ■ The city shall develop a schedule specifying how,when and where it will use
Programming the land or fees or both to develop park or recreational facilities.Any fees col-
lected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after 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
shall be distributed and paid to each record owner of the subdivision in the
same proportion that the size of each lot bears to the total area of all lots in the
subdivision;
■ Only the payment of fees may be required for subdivisions containing 50
'parcels or fewer;
■ Subdivisions of fewer than five parcels that are not used for residential pur-
poses shall be exempt unless a building permit for a residential structure is
requested for one of the parcels within four years. The Quimby Act is not
applicable to commercial and industrial subdivisions or condominium projects
78 ■ or stock cooperatives which consist of subdivision of airspace in an existing
Chapter Five ■ Subdivisions
apartment building more than five years old when no new dwelling units are
added;
Opportunity a Planned developments,real estate developments(Bus.&Prof.Code§§ 11003,
for credit 11003.1),community apartment projects, condominium projects and stock
cooperatives shall be eligible for credit as determined by the city;and
■ If.the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedi-
cated 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.Gov't Code§66477(i).The Attorney General
in a 1990 opinion stated that a city as a condition of regulating and approving
a subdivision may not lawfully require the dedication of land improved for
park and recreational purposes without credit being given to the subdivider
for the value of the recreational improvements that are provided by the subdi-
vider. 73 Ops. Cal.Atty. Gen. 152 (1990). The Attorney General further
stated, however, that a city has other means by which it may obtain land,
improvements and fees for parks and recreational fees.
b. School dedication Gov't Code § 66478.The provision in the Map Act
for school site dedication is not a true dedication provision. Gov't Code§66478.It is
basically a reservation requirement for an elementary kchool site with a right to purchase
later.Its use appears to be minimal. Cities and school districts rely on other laws which
are discussed in Chapter 1.4(Exactions,Dedications&Development Fees).
c. Reservations Gov't Code§§66479-66482.The Map Act provides that
a city may impose by ordinance a requirement that real property within the subdivision
be reserved for parks,recreational facilities,fire stations, libraries, or other public uses.
As with parkland dedication, the ordinance must follow certain criteria contained in
the statute.
The reserved area must be of a size and shape to permit the balance of the
property to develop in an orderly,efficient manner.Upon approval of the final map,the
city must enter into a binding agreement with the subdivider to acquire the reserved area
within two years after the completion and acceptance of all improvements,unless this
time period is mutually extended.The purchase price shall be the market value at the
time of filing of the tentative map plus the taxes against the reserved area from the date
of reservation and maintenance costs(including interest costs)on any loans covering the
` reserved area.If the city does not agree,reservation automatically terminates.
d. Street and bicycle path dedications Gov't Code §§ 66475-
66475.1. Dedications for streets, alleys, including access rights and abutters' rights,
drainage, public utility and other public easements can be imposed by ordinance. Govt
Code § 66475. Bicycle paths cannot be required unless the subdivision contains 200 or
more parcels.Gov't Code§66475.1.
e. Dedication for local transit facilities Gov't Code § 66475.2. Acity
may,by local ordinance,require dedication of land for local transit facilities, such as bus
turnouts,benches,shelters,landing pads and similar items which directly benefit the res-
idents of a subdivision if(1) the subdivision as shown on the tentative map has the
potential for 200 dwelling units or more if developed to,the maximum density shown on ■ 79
ATTACHMENT 2B
RELATED GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
AND PARKS ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES
The attached "Interim Contra Costa County Parks,Recreation and Trails Program and
Organizational Structure" was a joint effort by the Community Development
Department .and the Public Works Department within GMEDA in June 1996. The
document identified operations and activities related to recreational opportunities in the
unincorporated portions of the county. It provides an excellent starting point for
additional planning.
0
INTERIM
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PARKS, RECREATION, AND
TRAILS PROGRAM AND
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Prepared by the
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Public Works Department
June, 1996
1. POLICY ON PARKS AND RECREATION FUNCTION
Contra Costa County provides parks and recreational services to the urbanized areas of the
County. Usually, it provides these services through a local financing entity established to fund
operation and maintenance facilities in a community, discreet area or a development project.
However,given the historical context of how the County developed and the vastly different
size and shapes of the unincorporated areas remaining in the County, the recreation function
that services unincorporated populations occur through a very wide range of mechanisms.
Among these mechanisms are:
• County Service areas for unincorporated communities.
• Autonomous recreation and park districts.
• Landscaping and lighting districts.
• Joint use agreements with other agencies.
• Cities for lands within their sphere of influence.
• Special arrangements.
Where there are unincorporated communities currently not served by a local financing agency,
the County encourages the community or the Municipal Advisory Committees serving these
areas to work with the County to establish and insure funding for local park facilities.
2. COUNTY ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK TO PROVIDE THE RECREATION
AND PARKS FUNCTION.
Several County Departments are involved in the provision of local recreational facilities. This
arrangement generally follows how staff functions have evolved as the Board of Supervisors
has worked on the organization of County Departments. Most functions occur within the
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GIvIEDA). The main staff
functions and the person and phone number to contact should you have questions are listed
by Department:
A. Community Development Department
(1) Park Policy Planning
The County General Plan forms the basic policy document for undertaking the
park's function. It generally locates the local park or trail and outlines the
standard aspired toward for each type of recreational facility. The location of
parks tend to reflect near term conditions and are not intended to show all
park lands necessary to meet General Plan goals or performance standards.
1
When pending general plan amendments have parks potential, they can also
be considered as part of the plan amendment process.
Questions should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section, 335-
1236 (Tim Cutler).
(2) Parks Master Plans(or Action Plans).
Park master plans or action plans provide further guidance than can be found
in a General Plan. Master or Action Plans outline specific park and recreation
proposed facilities and funding proposals for either a facility or geographic
area of the County. They can be specific to an acquired parkland ready for
development or be a wish list of potential park sites.
They are approved by the Board of Supervisors but are not made.part of the
General Plan (since they may not be fully realized).
Questions should be directed to the Public Works Special Districts 313-2253
(Attn: Skip Epperly)or Comprehensive Planning Section 335-1236 (Attn: Jim
Cutler).
(3) Coordination With Other Agencies On Future Facilities.
The County is actively involved with the East Bay Regional Park District, the
California Department of Parks and Recreation, cities, or other local facility
providers. This section also staffs the Contra Costa County-East Bay
Regional Park District liaison committee.
Questions should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section, 335-
1236 (Attn: Jim Cutler).
(4) Capital Improvement Program
A five year Capital Improvement Program is prepared yearly outlining
anticipated expenditures for neighborhood parks facilities by revenue source
and year of expenditure. The CIP guides near-term actions by County staff
to ensure proposed development projects will meet the General Plan's growth
management performance standard for neighborhood parks.
Questions should be directed to the Transportation Planning Section 335-
1240 (Attn: Steve Goetz).
2
(5) Conformance With 1988 Measure C Provisions.
Annually, the County undertakes a review of its efforts to conform to the
growth management element of the County General Plan for submission to the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
Questions should be directed to the Transportation Planning Section 335-
1240(Attn: Steve Goetz).
(6) Redevelopment Planning
The County has five redevelopment areas: North Richmond, Oakley, Rodeo,
Bay Point, and Pleasant Hill BART. Provision of parks and trails facilities are
a part of this function.
Question within the five redevelopment area boundaries should be directed to
the.Redevelopment Agency 335-1255 (Attn: Jim Kennedy).
B. Public Works Department
(1) Creation of local agencies. Most County parks are operated and maintained
through local entities, e.g. County Service Areas or Landscaping and Lighting
Districts. The California Government Code specifies procedures for creation
of these local entities.
Questions regarding creation or annexation to these entities should be directed
to the Special Districts Division 313-2253 (Attn: Skip Epperly).
(2) Day to Day Operation of County Parks or Trails.
The operation and maintenance of County recreational facilities or the
provision of recreational activities is a major function of the County's
recreational operation.
Questions regarding the day-to-day operation of County parks should be
directed to the Special Districts Division 313-2253 (Attn: Skip Epperly).
(3) Facility Planning
Facility or site planning is a coordinated effort involving several County
Departments;but it's main focus is in the Public Works Department.
Generally Public Works Special Districts works with the following sections
to fulfill this function as outlined below:
3
• _Master Planning is coordinated with the Community Development
Department(see item 2A(2).
• Park land and trail acquisition is done by Real Property Division of
Public Works.
• County parks facilities are generally designed by the Architectural
Services Division of the General Services Department.
• Legal services are provided by the County Counsel's office.
• Long term leases with other public agencies for recreation purposes
are coordinated by the General Service Department's Lease
Management section.
Questions regarding facility planning should be directed to the Special
Districts Division 313-2253 (Attn: Skip Epperly).
(4) Coordination with County Service Area Citizen Committees.
Several County Service Areas for recreation have citizen committees to advise
the Board of Supervisors on parks and recreation facilities. In some cases
these are the Municipal Advisory Councils which comment on a range of
issues including parks. Certain County Service Areas also have a local staff
contact.
Questions on County Service Area Citizen Committees or their agendas
should be directed to the Special Districts Division 313-2253 (Attn: Skip
Epperly).
(5) District Budgets and Park Dedication Funds.
Public Works prepares budgets for all special districts for recreation under the
control of the County. In addition, the County's Auditor's Office is the
depository for trust fund accounts for all park dedication fees collected in the
County. Park dedication fees are exactions paid for the construction of all
new homes in the unincorporated area of the County and are used to finance
new and improved local park and trail facilities.
Monies are kept in separate accounts based on proximity to where the homes
are constructed, so they can be spent to solve local parks needs. Where the
unincorporated areas are within a city Sphere of Influence (SOI), the money
can be made available to the city to improve city parks or acquire lands. Trust
4
fund money use is restricted to local parks facilities; it is not generally
available for operation and maintenance purposes.
All requests for usage of park dedication funds are processed through the
County's Redevelopment Agency staff, however, day-to-day control is through
the County Public Works Special Districts section staff.
Questions on the park's trust fund or local agency budget should be directed
toward Special Districts Section 313-2253 (Attn: Skip Epperly), for
processing through the County's Redevelopment Agency staff.
3. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The County's park and trail programs starts with the concepts found in the Contra Costa
County General Plan. The Parks and Recreation issues are covered in a section of the Open
Space Element extending from page 9 - 18 through page 9 - 38. This section first discusses
the major parks and open space areas of the County and then on page 9 -23 focuses on the
local parks and trails program (the focus of this document). For a full understanding of the
County General Plan's park policies, the reader should examine that document at the
Community Development Department or at the libraries throughout the County. Table 1
reproduces the Parks and Recreation Goals and Policies from that plan.
County General Plan growth management polices for neighborhood parks call for a standard
of three acres per 1,000 population. In single family residential areas that would average
around three acres for every 333 homes and in multiple family residential areas that is
approximately three acres for every 500 homes. Most unincorporated communities in the
County do not presently meet this standard. The purpose of the General Plan's Growth
Management Element is to ensure that all new development approved by the.County will meet
this standard. New development in unincorporated areas should be carefully reviewed to
determine its impact on meeting this standard. Applicants are expected to provide a facility(s)
that meet the local parks performance standard or a funding mechanism has been established
which will provide the facility to meet the standard.
A. Park Criteria.
Table 2 identifies the park criteria the County utilizes when considering new facilities.
In the real world,especially where parks are being added to the existing urban fabric
these criteria can't always be met. None-the-less, they are the starting point for
consideration of new facilities.
B. Private Recreational Facilities.
Increasingly, private developments are being considered which provide on-site
recreational facilities to serve project residents. These facilities provide project
amenities and are effective implementation tools. These facilities may limit the effect
5
of new homes on public park facilities; they effectively expand the range and number
of recreational facilities available to area residents. While these facilities are
maintained by homeowners associations or by other local financing mechanisms, they
generally are not available to the general public. The addition of private recreation
facilities are encouraged by County General Plan policy.
Inclusion of such facilities in new projects in a community will generally lessen the
impact of new homes on existing local parks.
The appropriateness of these facilities are determined in the review of new
development applications.
Questions on private recreational facilities in new developments should be directed
to the Current Planning section of Community Development at 335-1210.
C. Trails.
Riding, biking and hiking trails are planned for in various combinations throughout
' the County. The planned County trail system is coordinated with facilities of the East
Bay Regional Park District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Water
District and the cities. The general plan includes maps identifying the planned trails
which would be desirable throughout the County. Local or feeder trails are not
generally shown on the trails map, but are encouraged by the plan. Trails through
major parks and open space areas aren't show on the countywide plan maps.
D. Regional Trails.
The East Bay Regional Park District is the main provider of trails between
communities. These facilities are developed in cooperation with the other
governmental agencies they pass through. Operation and maintenance of their trails
is provided by the District. The off-road trail system provided by the District is a
major recreational resource of the County; this function's expanding rapidly in terms
of areas served and miles in service.
Questions regarding the planned regional trail system should be addressed to the
Trails Section of the East Bay Regional Park District (635-0138).
E. Planned Local Trail Routes or On-Road Facilities.
The cities and the County work cooperatively to have safe on road or adjacent to the
road biking and walking facilities. Given the intermingling of jurisdictional
boundaries, it is difficult to determine which agency can answer questions on local
trail facilities.
Questions about local trails both planned or developed can best be responded to by
contacting city staff or in unincorporated area by Ernie Vovakis (335-1243).
6
4. PARK DEDICATION FEES (Quimby Act)
State legislation(the Quimby Act) allows local governments to collect parkland dedication
fees in lieu of having every development be responsible for building local park facilities on
site. The presumption behind this legislation is that every local jurisdiction can establish local
park standards and that new development is responsible for adding additional land and/or
facilities to keep pace with the current standard. Contra Costa County has adopted a local
parkland standard of three acres of neighborhood parks for each 1,000 population. This is
the standard discussed in the Quimby Act.
A. Current Fees.
The current fees are$2,000 for each new home; in East Contra Costa County the fee
is $1,350. That lower fee was based on the lower land value which existed in East
County.
Decisions on whether land and facilities should be provided, or if the payment of fees
is appropriate,happens when a development application is reviewed and in the public
hearing process. For applications of less than fifty units,the payment of fees is usually
presumed.
B. Annual Review of Fee.
It has been several years since the park dedication fees have been reviewed to insure
the fee is adequate to meet the standards. A.study will need to be undertaken to see
if the fee needs to be adjusted and if the lower fee in East County continues to be
warranted. This effort will need to be accomplished by the Public Works and
Community Development Departments in time for the 1997-1998 fee adjustments (at
budget adoption time). The park dedication fee should be adjusted annually based on
either the CPI for the Bay Area or by a study to ensure the fee is adequate to meet the
standard requirements.
Questions on the fee amount should be directed toward the Special Districts Section
313-2253 (Attn: Skip Epperly).
C. City Sphere Of Influence Funds.
Where development occurs within a city sphere of influence (SOI), these funds are
available for use by that city for land acquisition of facility improvement. This is true
except where the unincorporated areas are large and have a local parks agency which
will utilize these funds e.g. Bay Point in the Pittsburg SOI or Kensington in the El
Cerrito SOI, etc.
A city can be considered for use of these funds by special request to the County
Public Works Department (Special Districts staff for a specific park use. That
7
request will be processed by staff to the Board of Supervisors which will make the
final decision on the transfer of the park dedication money to a city for a specific use.
Where funds are transferred to a city for their use,the County will take credit for that
transferral in terms of compliance with the growth management requirements of
Measure C.
Questions on the City SOI program should be directed to Special Districts Section
(313-2253).
D. Negotiated Higher Park Dedication Fees.
On occasion the County has negotiated higher park dedication fees than the County
ordinance code requirements. Generally,this has occurred with development in a city
SOI where the city has a higher park dedication fee than the County and the city has
requested the County to apply the higher fee so that all developments within a city
SOI pay the same amount..
For this concept to be implemented, it needs to be done during consideration of the
development application by the hearing body.
This approach is consistent with the County's park dedication ordinance because it
relies on the more localized municipal knowledge of the cost of facilities in their area.
In no case will the park dedication fee be lowered if a city has a lower park dedication
fee.
Higher fees can also be considered where a specific localized park shortfall has been
identified and higher fees are required to meet the park standard.
Questions on this issue should be referred to the Current Planning section of the
Community Development Department (335-1210).
E. Credit For Private Recreational Facilities.
County General Plan policy allows for the possibility of a developer receiving partial
park dedication fee credit for on-site recreational facilities. The County park
dedication fee ordinance allows for up to 50% credit to be considered. The decision
on whether credit should be allowed occurs during review of a development
application. Prior to any credit being given for a recreation facility, a finding must be
adopted that the facility must open to and service the public. Increasingly it has been
more difficult to receive a park dedication credit for on-site facilities.
Questions on this issue should be referred to the Current Planning section of the
Community Development Department (335-1210).
8
S. DETERMINING THE NEED FOR ON-SITE LOCAL PARKS FACILITIES.
The General Plan provides the standards for developing local plans and identifies the general
location of such facilities, parks and trails. It is far too general to provide site specific
determinations. The General Plan does not identify all the facilities necessary to comply with
the General Plan goals for park and recreation facilities or the performance standards for
neighborhood parks. To date that has occurred in two general fashions - through the
development of local parks and trail master plans or through individual decisions on specific
development proposals.
A. Parks and Trail Master Plans.
Several unincorporated communities within the County have initiated park and trail
master plans which identify opportunities and potential parks and.trails that can be
developed to serve the community. It usually relates back to the standards for local
parks identified in the General Plan. These are efforts where County staff work in
concert with a local citizen group (e.g. County Service Area Committee) to develop
a plan. A consultant is usually hired to assist in the preparation of such a plan.
Once such a plan has been prepared by a local citizens group and staff, it is forwarded
to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the plan as one basis for considering park
and trail facilities. It is=made a part of the County General Plan since it usually is
a wish list of desired facilities. It is common that all identified potential sites can't be
financed or developed. Placement in the General Plan can lead to legal concerns over
on the"takings issue".
Many communities have such plans approved for their areas but not all-do and some
are in need of update. No unincorporated Countywide Parks Master Plan has been
completed for the County.
Questions on Parks and Trail Master Plans should be directed to Special Districts
Division (3.13-2253) or the Comprehensive Planning Section attention, Jim Cutler
(335-1236).
B. Decisions on Land Development Applications.
For large developments (over 50 units) it is relatively common for the developer to
recommend the construction of on-site recreational facilities. The applicant makes
additional recommendations on how the facilities are to be operated and maintained
(the institutional arrangement to insure perpetual financing). Some of the facilities
will be for use by project residents, others could be for use by the general public as
local parks.
9
In other cases the development proposal will not include recreational facilities and
County staff will argue the need to redesign the project to provide for residents or
area wide local parks needs.
In either case,the need for recreational facilities can be considered in the staff review
of the development or redevelopment applications and throughout the public hearing
process. Obligations for new local park facilities need to be in relationship to the
impact the,project will have existing recreational facilities of the area. A valid public
issue is whether an applicant will pay fees or be required to provide (or contribute
land toward)a local park.
Among the issues staff considers in making a recommendation on whether or not to
require on site recreational facilities are:
1) Conformity to the General Plan local parks map.
2) If the site is shown or referenced in an approved local parks master plan.
3) Conformity with the growth management requirements of the County General
Plan.
4) Public concern or desires.
5) Viewpoint of Board established citizens advisory committee or elected
Board's that direct the operation of recreation agencies.
6) Views of the project developer.
7) Availability of an agency(or ability to create an agency)to finance operation
and maintenance.
' The final County decision on the nature and extent of facilities occurs based on both
the staff report(s) and on the public hearing process. The Board of Supervisors is
usually the final decision-making body.
Questions on specific development application and on-site recreation facilities should
be directed to the Current Planning Division of the Community Development
Department (335-1210).
6. OPEN SPACE LANDS
In much of Contra Costa County the flatter more easily developed land has already been
developed or approved for development. Substantial portions of the remaining lands are on
parcels where there are high slope lands or wetlands which will need permanent protection
consistent with General Plan policies and State and Federal programs and policies. Some
properties,while traditionally considered developable, may be limited in potential due to the
presence of rare or endangered species.
The options for control of these lands within a development are maintained by a homeowner's
association, gifting the lands to a public agency or leaving the land in private ownership (while
restricting future development on the property).
10
Traditionally such areas would be conditioned by deeding the development rights to the
County and having the lands maintained by a homeowner's association. This is still a valuable
method of control over such lands.
Increasingly, such lands are being offered to a public agency, including the County, for
maintenance. Public policies on wetlands control and the Endangered Species Act make
public ownership and maintenance to perpetuate the resource(s) of species increasingly
desirable. There are presently no County policies giving direction to staff on when, or if, such
land should be accepted by the County.
Until a complete study of the issue is done, the following interim policies will provide some
guidance.
A. If open space land is available and is contiguous to property owned by another public
agency. County staff will routinely urge dedication of the land to that public agency.
County staff will contact the East Bay Regional Park District staff to see if they would
desire acceptance of such land.
B. The local land trust Cif one exists) or other land trusts will be contacted to see if they
wish to take on stewardship of the land.
C. Where there is no adjacent public agency land (or where they decline to accept the
-land) the County will consider acceptance of the land if there is an important public
benefit in that action. Examples of important public benefit would be protecting
wetlands or the sites that have actual use by special status species.
D. Acceptance will be considered where the site is adjacent to an existing County facility,
such as a local park, and the acceptance will provide public control in a cost-effective
manner.
E. Acceptance, generally, will only be considered if an endowment fund or funding
mechanism is provided to cover the costs of operation and maintenance of this land.
Examples of such mechanisms include landscaping and lighting districts, county
service districts, mandatory pass through from homeowner's association, etc.
F. Lands which serve as project open space for visual amenities or high slope lands do
not generally met the criteria of important public benefit and will be a homeowner's
association facility. If grazing or discing is required it will generally be a
homeowner's responsibility.
G. Size will be an important factor in consideration of land to be accepted by the County.
The smaller the size, the less need there should be for county involvement. Lands
smaller than=acres that lack"important public benefit" and that aren't adjacent to
other county park lands usually won't be considered for County acceptance. The
11
Board of Supervisors is the final decision-making body on what constitutes
"important public benefit."
Questions regarding open space dedications should be directed to the Comprehensive
Planning Section of Community Development (335-1235), Current Planning Division
of Community Development (335-1210) and the Special Districts Section of Public
Works(313-2253).
7. NEW COAMUNMES
Recently the County has had several development proposals for projects larger than 1,000
residential units. These type of projects are large enough that they could greatly impact the
recreational program of the area or adjacent city.
It would appear that these projects need to be treated as separate areas for park and
recreational facilities.
Interim policies on these projects include:
A. The project's minimum local park acreage standard shall be four acres per 1,000
population.
B. Where the project is within the SOI of a city or could logically be added to the
adjacent cities SOI, the project shall meet the adjacent cities park district standards.
C. A mechanism to provide and operate the local parks will be required to be established
before occupancy of any units on the site. If annexation to a city is anticipated and
they will be the agency to run the facilities, all resources and financing set aside to
fund the County parks shall be transferred to the annexing city.
D. Where open space lands are part of the planning scheme, an integrated program of
open space management shall be required and all open space lands in this project shall
be deed restricted as part of subdivision approval process. A financing mechanism
shall be established to maintain the open space lands. Large open space areas shall
be under the control of a public agency(see open space policies#6 above).
S. TRAIL REQUIREMENTS
Where a land development project is proposed along a planned trail route, to insure the
project's conformity with the General Plan,the project should be conditioned on construction
of improvements to the trail (if needed).
12
A. Deferred Improvement Agreements.
In some cases a deferred development agreement may be allowed on segments of the
trail to allow for uniformity of construction; this approach should be utilized
sparingly.
B. Coordination with EBRPD, cities, other trail providers.
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with other public agencies for trail
facilities that cross or are adjacent to the property being considered for development.
C. Project Conformity With The Adopted General Plan.
Project conformity with the General Plan will only be granted for an application
fronting on a proposed trail shown on the Biking, Hiking or Riding Trail Plan maps
shown in the County General Plan if the trail is already complete or if the application
is conditioned on providing trail improvements. Frontage improvements is the
minimum required action to define conformity.
D. The County Planning Agency will be responsible for determining the nature of
improvements necessary to insure compliance with the General Plan.
9. SPECIAL PROGRAMS
County citizens advisory committees have occasionally gone beyond recreational roles in
advising the Board on park and recreation matters. A recent example is where County
Service Area R-7A worked with Danville and San Ramon on the San Ramon Creeks Trail and
Revegetation Study. The study went beyond planning the trail along San Ramon Creek into
revegetation and other matters.
This is appropriate where the citizen's group can show a relationship between their Board
established role and the broader environmental issue involved.
10. RECREATION PROGRAMS
The County will operate recreational programs for a community, but only where the funding
for these type programs can be assured through the budget of a local financing entity.
11. PRIVATE FOR PROFIT RECREATION FACILITIES.
The County has an active role in promoting and approving private recreational facilities
ranging from campgrounds, equestrian centers to docks and wharfs along the many water
resources of the County. While not generally perceived as local park facilities, they do
expand the range of available recreation opportunities to our citizens. Opportunities to
13
further integrate these operations into the recreation fabric of the County need to be further
explored.
12. OPTIONS FOR FINANCING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
Special districts have been a prominent feature of local government in Contra Costa County,
especially since the implementation of Proposition 13 in 1978. Special districts share with
cities many of the same powers with respect to providing specific services and facilities to a
community. In many cases, special districts have the legal ability to deliver a wide range of
municipal services, yet offer representation and local control related to those services
provided.
Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 resulted in severely curtailing the ad valorem property tax
for special districts, leaving fewer alternatives to fund local programs. An additional blow to
local financing was the recent shift of Special District Augmentation Funds, or AB8 Funds,
from cities and counties to the State. Proposition 13 effectively eliminated the establishment
of new districts dependent on the property tax and public agencies began to look for
alternative financing methods.
Contra Costa County has utilized various methods of financing park development, operation
and maintenance. The principal forms of financing are the County Service Areas, the Park
Dedication Trust Funds (Quimby Act), the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, special
taxes and State and local park grants.
County Service Areas
The County Service Area Law was developed as a mechanism through which counties could
furnish to unincorporated areas a wide variety of municipal-type services beyond those
uniformly provided countywide. Contra Costa County has seven County Service Areas which
provide park,recreation,landscaping and maintenance activities. Pre-Proposition 13 Service
Areas draw on the ad valorem tax as its source of revenue. The Pre-Proposition 13 County
Service Areas where parks and landscaping services are provided are Clyde, Alamo,
Discovery Bay, Crockett and MonTaraBay.
Post-Proposition 13 County Service Areas do not share in the ad valorem tax because of the
rules governing the creation of Tax Rate Areas (TRA's). There are two service areas in
Contra Costa County which provide park services that do not receive funding through the ad
valorem tax. Those areas are El Sobrante and Rodeo.
Special Assessments Under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, State of
California
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 provides a means for the County and other public
agencies with an alternative financing for landscaping, lighting, community halls, parks and
recreation improvements. Properties benefiting from these improvements may be assessed
14
through annual assessments on real property tax bills. There are special assessments not
subject to Proposition 13 rather than taxes, because the revenues collected are for specific
improvements. Landscape and park improvements in particular have long been recognized
by California statutory law as improvements which benefit local property and for which
special assessments are appropriate.
Grants
The State of California has had a long tradition of supporting regional and local park
development through the use of special ballot measures providing funding revenue. The East
Bay Regional Parks District has also issued bond measures to provide similar funding to park
development.
Park Dedication Funds (Quimby Act)
The County currently has a two-tier Park Dedication Fee. The fee for East County is $1,350,
and$2,000 for the balance of the unincorporated County. The use of Park Dedication Fees
are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing parks or
recreation facilities which will serve future residents of a development or the community from
which the fees are collected. The County may accept the dedication of land and
improvements in lieu of fees.
13. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.
In furtherance of the interim program the following items need to be undertaken by staff over
the next few months.
A. Review and adjust the park dedication fees based on current costs as an interim
measure.
B. Work with the Internal Operation Committee to determine how to finance a
Countywide Parks Master Plan.
C. Consider if a separate trails Master Plan should be developed (maybe with CCTA
monies).
D. Direct staff to follow these Interim policies in reviewing land development
applications.
Jwc:BW
j:\aw\intefirn2Jc
June 27,1996
15
TABLE 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES GOALS
9-H. To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, properly designed park and
recreational facilities to serve the needs of all residents.
9-I. To develop a system of interconnected hiking, riding and bicycling trails and paths suitable
for both active recreational use and for the purpose of transportation/circulation.
9-J. To promote active and passive recreational enjoyment of the County's physical amenities
for the continued health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the County.
9-K. To achieve a level of park facilities of four acres per 1,000 population.
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES POLICIES
9-32. Major park lands shall be reserved to ensure that the present and future needs of the
County's residents will be met and to preserve areas of natural beauty or historical interest
for future generations. Apply the parks and recreation performance standards in the
Growth Management Element.
9-33. A well-balanced distribution of local parks, based on character and intensity of present and
planned residential development and future recreation needs, shall be preserved.
9-34. Park design shall be appropriate to the recreational needs and access capabilities of all
residents in each locality.
2) along waterways having an adequate channel width as defined by the State Harbors
and Navigation Code;
3) in areas having adequate public vehicular access;
4) where off-site improvements, such as required access roads, can be assigned to
development;
5) where adequate on-site sewage disposal can be provided;
16
TABLE 1 (continued)
6) where located in an area served by a public fire protection district; and
7) when such uses will not conflict with adjacent agricultural uses.
Intergovernmental Coordination
9-t. Coordinate with the various school districts in the County to provide for the joint use of
recreation facilities.
9-u. Coordinate funds and programs administered by County government and other agencies, such
as the East Bay Regional Park District, to obtain optimum recreation facilities development.
9-v. Develop a comprehensive and interconnected series of hiking, biking and riding trails in
conjunction with cities, special districts, public utilities and county service areas.
.Funding
9-w. Form a County-wide committee to explore funding sources for recreation and open space to
support regional, community and local park and trails on a County-wide basis.
9-x. Work with local unincorporated communities to determine the means of providing local park
services where the need presently exists, as well as when development occurs.
9-y. Increase the park dedication fee to a level which approaches the local park dedication
standards called for in this Plan.
17
TABLE 2
COUNTY PARK CRITERIA
1. Playlots
a. Site Area: 2,000-5,000 square feet for either an independent site or that portion of
a playground developed as a playlot.
b. Location: Independent sites located in the centers of apartment projects or planned
unit developments which they are intended to serve.
C. Facilities: Basic facilities include playground equipment for preschool children
(swings, slides, climbing apparatus) and shaded bench area for parents. Additional
facilities include sandboxes, spray pools, and both grassed and hard-surfaced play
areas.
2. Playgrounds
a. Site Area: Independent site -- 3-7 acres; in conjunction with park or school -- 3-5
acres.
b. Location: Central to neighborhood served, preferably accessible without having to
cross traffic arterials or railroads.
C. Facilities: Basic facilities include playground equipment for elementary school
children plus both hard-surfaced and grassed play areas. Additional facilities include
playlot, shelter, sports and game areas (baseball diamonds, tennis courts, and wading
and swimming pools).
d. Service Radius: One-half mile; larger in areas of low population density or unusual
topography.
e. Association: Playgrounds should be developed in conjunction with elementary
schools and parks for maximum effectiveness. Location within independently-situated
play fields and parks is also desirable.
3. Pla,�elds.
a. Site Area: 10 acres minimum, 15 acres desirable; 12 acres minimum, 17 acres
desirable for sites with playground facilities.
b. Location: Central to four or five neighborhoods (roughly four or five elementary
school service areas).
18
Table 2 (Continued)
C. Facilities: Primary facilities include game courts, sports fields, lawn games area. Secondary
facilities include swimming pool, shelter house or recreation building, parking lot.
d. Association: Playfields adjoining high school sites or community parks are
particularly appropriate. Playlots and playground should also be included.
4. Neighborhood Parks
a. Acreage/Population: 2.50 acres per 1,000 population.
b. Site Area: Without playground -- 3-7 acres; with playground -- 6-8 acres; with
playfield -- 12-17 acres.
C. Location: Identical to playgrounds -- center of neighborhood.
d. Facilities: (Park area only)Landscaped open space (trees, grass; shrubbery), benches
and tables, and walks.
e. Service Radius: One-half mile.
f. Association: Neighborhood parks are best located adjacent to playgrounds, playfields
and elementary schools. They may also contain a neighborhood recreation center.
5. Community Parks
a. Acreage/Population: 1.50 acres per 1,000 population.
b. Site Area: Independent sites -- 15-20 acres. With playgrounds and playfield --
minimum 25 acres, recommended 40-50 acres.
C. Location: In the center of a group of neighborhoods. The site should have some
natural features of interest such as water frontage or rough topography if possible.
d. Service Radius: Two miles.
e. Facilities: Both landscaped and natural open space, playgrounds and playfields,
parking, special facilities such as golf, boating and swimming, and a community
center.
JwC:aw
jAaw\interim2.jc
June 27,1996
19
f
POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH MEASURE C (1988) GROWTH MANAGEMENT
STANDARD FOR PARKS.
The County must annually submit a self-certification program to the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority on how it has met the growth management standard for the preceding year. A review of
past submittals indicate that they haven't included information on the full range of park facilities
accomplished in a year. Future submittals need to deal with a broader range of accomplishments.
Future submittals need to describe:
A. Where the County has contributed improvements to joint school/park facilities.
B. Where the County has contributed to joint park-flood control basin facilities.
C. Where the County has contributed to joint park and trail flood control facilities (both
within cities and in the unincorporated areas.
D. When the County has transferred park funds e.g., park dedication or bond funds to
cities or autonomous special districts for their use,the County should receive prorated
credit for its level of contribution.
E. Where the County has required land dedication to a city or other public agency and
where the area has been planned for local recreational use.
F. Where the County has implemented trails (linear parks) to serve a local area, or
contributed to trail facilities being implemented by other agencies.
G. To acknowledge the loss of park facilities that are annexed by a city and/or transferred
to another agency.
H. Where the County has required for private recreation facilities to be developed and
maintained by a project. Especially if park dedication fees have been allowed for the
facilities and acreage provided.
JWC\aw
jAparksmsmeom
June 27,1996
June 27, 1996
ATTACHMENT 3
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM
Alamo R-7A
Oakley MAC
Danville
EI Sobrante Service Area R-9
EI Sobrante MAC
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM ALAMO R-7A
Comment.
The following is the text of a letter to Val Alexeefffrom Nancy D. Kaplan, Chair of the
Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee.
Alamo Parks and Recretion Committee appreciates and applauds your efforts an
establishing a comprehensive policy on Park Dedication fund disbursement procedures.
We are in agreement with this policy with only two clarifications.
First, Alamo Parks and Recreation Committee expects that all Park Dedication funds,
that are generated by developments within Alamo's boundaries remain in Alamo. We
understand that these funds would be used to enhance and build recreational facilities
for the new and established residents of Alamo. The Alamo Parks and Recreation
Committee does not have the staff or resources to follow these developments on a daily
basis nor do we wish to be placed in an adversarial position with our neighbors.
Finally, we hope that there is some flexibility in the expenditure of the funds should
a worthy project become available after the funds have been designated to a different
project.
We, again, appreciate your efforts on clarifying a complex situation.
Response:
Alamo R7-A Parks and Recreation Committee has been extremely cooperative and
supportive, despite the problems that initiated this effort. The guidelines will seek to
establish pre-eminent entities that manage parks for specific areas as the recipient of
funds. The guidelines will also seek resolution for fund allocation to those areas
without such designation. The guideline objective is to promote effective use of funds,
therefore, flexibility will be incorporated. The guidelines will be circulated for review.
VA:dg
parkf iO 2
(8/21/97)
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM OAKLEY MAC
Note: Individual sections from the proposal are reprinted here with OMAC's comments
shown in italics or with sb*cout:
Comment:
1. Subdivision approval includes an advisory of the park fee ordinance
requirement. The approval should include a condition on the park facility
options and preferences for the property. The developers of the proposed
subdivision may submit park facility options and preferences for the property;
however, primary consideration shall be given to the wishes of the planning
entity of the community that is responsible for the planning ofparks'facilities.
r The purpose of this condition is to allow the community to contribute to the
decision-making process in keeping with the planning of the community's Parks
Master Plan; e.g., using in-lieu fees for planned parks'facilities that are
awaiting adequate funds for development and/or completion.* If the subdivision
is to pay in-lieu fees, the appropriate options for expenditure of those fees
should be identified by the recipient of said funds (as identified in No. 3 below).
If the subdivision is to pay in-lieu fees, the appropriate options for expenditure
of those fees should be identified. At the time of project review, interested
parties in the vicinity shall be notified of the potential existence of funds and/or
facilities. Final review should incorporate total land and fees to be provided and
the expectation of how and where those fees will be structured. There should
also be an estimate of when land will be accepted and when fees will be spent.
Should a park proposal be identified and accepted from a district, city or other
public entity,-fitey such entity shall be notified upon final approval of the
subdivision map. (CDD by July 1)
Response:
Incorporate this suggestion, however, it does not appear to acknowledge the discretion
given to the developer by the Quimby Act and county ordinance. Developers are
entitled to credit for private facilities and the county does not have absolute veto power
over developer proposals. The decision to choose dedication versus fee, in the event
VA:dg
parkfnd3 3
(8121197)
tsri- —
I
of a dispute, is specified in 920-12.004 of the county ordinance (see Attachment 2).
This may be used in the argument that the land is unsuitable and fees are required.
Where a master parks plan exists that identifies adequate facilities for all areas of the
community, this can be a compelling argument to favor a specific recommendation.
It will be important for the Oakley Parks Master Plan to incorporate specific ordinance
language in its implementation recommendations. It will also be important for OMAC
to receive recognition as the community spokesgroup for a specific geographical area
and designated contractee for said funds (county is recipient).
Comment:
2. A park account will be established for all subdivisions that have been approved
arncvvffl pay for the payment of in-lieu fees. The planning sheet for the account
will indicate census tract location of the project, number of units, and fees
anticipated based on land/unit formula. The sheet shall be used to -monitor
timeframe for expenditure of funds. (CDD or PW by July 1)
Response:
Incorporate comment, but add "distinguishing payment of in-lieu fees, dedication of
land and private facility credit."
Comment:
3. . Funds to be disbursed from the park account shall be distributed to one of the
following recipients. The intent of distribution is to find an accountable
recipient who can provide park facilities either close to the development that is
generating the fees or to an area within the community identified by the
recipient to be the most appropriate park facility to be developed at that time.
Local area needs and priorities will be taken into account in the final
determination for disbursement.
a. A special district within the census tract of the subdivision that oversees
development and maintenance of park facilities.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 4
(9/21/97)
i ;
r
b. A city or appropriate government agency that has been determined to
provide park and ride facilities within the census area.
C. An organization that may be an incorporated non-profit that is developing
facilities within the census area.
d. Should none of the entities above within the census tract be interested,
funds may be distributed outside the census tract provided that the
community of which the census tract is a part is notified and agrees to
this distribution outside its census, tract and provided a nexus can be
demonstrated to the land for which the developer is paying the fee, e.g.
soccer or baseball fields proximate to the subdivision as defined by league
boundaries and accessible to the general public outside league play "times.
e. Competing proposals will be evaluated for proximity to the development,
benefit to residents, and universality of access, as determined by the
Community Development Director.
Response:
This issue will need to be addressed in the guidelines. The developer has some say and
determination of fee appropriation. Nexus cannot be the decision of the local
committee. There will need to be fmdings basedon policies.
Comment:
3. Continued
Park fees can be expended upon the following, subject to the approval of the
planning entity of the community that is responsible for the planning ofparks'
facilities and subject to the conditions and requirements of the community's
Parks Master Plan:
a. Purchase of land.
VA:dg
parkfid3 5
(9/21197)
b. Purchase or improvement of park and recreational facilities.
C. Purchase of infrastructure, such as drainage lines or bridges, necessary
for a specific park site.
d. Park and recreational facilities' design.
The intent of these funds is to provide funding for facility development and
improvement, not employee salaries or routine maintenance.
Response:
This is actually the decision of the planning commission and must allow some,credits
to the developer as indicated in state and county legislation. The planning commission
must include adopted parks master plans in their consideration.
Comment:
4. In order to receive commitment from the County, entities and interested parties
shall submit the following information:
a. Description of current and proposed facilities.
b. Proposed Location(s) where the funds will be used.
C. Cost of the project and other contributions.
d. Statement of how this project will benefit fee-paying residents. (Note to
county: the developer pays the fee, not the resident.)
e. Description of proposed improvements.
f. Timetable for expenditure of funds.
g. Description of property to be acquired.
VA:dg
parkfid3 6
(8/21/97)
Response:
Incorporate changes. I would prefer to include the future residents also as stakeholders
or the intent of the fee can be lost. In response to comment on d. above, where does
the developer get the fee?
Comment:
5. The County may elect to require review of proposals, plans, and cost estimates
by an appropriate professional to review costs and design at the applicant's
expense with this condition being subject to the approval of the planning entity
of the community that is responsible for the planning of parks'facilities and
subject to the conditions and requirements of the community's Parks Master
Plan.
Response:
In the event of a dispute the county may wish to consult an independent professional
without the approval of a-community planning entity. Change wording to say, "local
planning entities shall be included in the process to provide independent review."
Comment:
7. The developer may elect to build facilities which will necessitate a work
program, cost estimates, and agreement from participating entities; however,
said proposal is subject to the approval of the planning entity of the community
that is responsible for the planning of parks'facilities and subject to the
conditions and requirements of the community's Parks Master Plan. Plans to
be reviewed f6r developer construction and receipt of cred4 shail follow flood,
control-proeedure
VA:dg
parkf iO 7
(8/21/97)
♦ -P
Response:
Add "for review and comment" to approval, since the planning commission cannot
delegate its decision making authority to a local planning entity. The commission may
condition the development to seek approval from the planning entity, but cannot be
unreasonably declined.
Comment:
9. The additional administration of park fees which may include the following
activities (to be reimbursed to actual timesheets and invoices from no more
than 1 S o of the interest on current accounts):
Response:
Incorporate clarification into proposed text.
Comment:
10. Special projects by the Board that can be shown to benefit park and recreation
services in the'unincorporated area may Asa be proposed to utilize specific
amounts of park dedication interest; however, such special projects shall be
subject to the approval of the planning entity of the community that is
responsible for the planning of parks'facilities and shall be subject to the
conditions and requirements of the community's Parks Master Plan. e.g.parr
mer p1 rr.
Response:
The Board cannot delegate this authority to a local planning entity, however, the Board
will include comments in its deliberation.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 8
(8/21/97)
Comment:
Add 11. Semi-annual reports on the financial accounts, which shall include all
developer-paid fees and all expenses (including administrative fees reimbursed to the
county), shall be presented by county staff to the entity of the community that is
responsible for the planning of parks' facilities (e.g., Municipal Advisory Councils).
Response:
Incorporate clarification into proposed text, but change semi-annual to periodic.
Final Remarks:
The recommendations of OMAC clearly demonstrate the sophistication and capability
of this group. The county has many areas and locations where there is no organized
interest or there are. inadequate master plans. OMAC will benefit by working on
policies, condition language, and other measures with staff and the planning
commission. Staff will benefit from further OMAC input.
t
VA:dg
parkfnd3 9
(8/21/97)
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM DANVILLE
Comment:
Paragraph 1 indicates that during preparation of county conditions of approval, "the
appropriate options for expenditure of [in-lieu] fees should be identified." If the
county will not be the agency constructing the improvements, sufficient notice during
the project review period should be given to the party responsible for the
improvements. This will insure that appropriate options are identified.
Response.-
Suggestion
esponse.Suggestion will be incorporated into the process.
Comment:
Paragraph 1 refers to "an estimate of when land will be accepted and when fees will
be spent." I assume this time frame would be in accordance with Government Code
Section 66477.
Response:
Yes.
Comment:
Paragraph 3 states that"local area needs and priorities will be taken into account in the
final determination for disbursement." How will these needs and priorities be
established and who will be responsible for determining them?
Response:
As part of the subdivision review process, park needs will be identified. Areas with
established park activities will provide plan or comment regarding programs and
VA:dg
parkfnd3 10
(8/21/97)
facilities offered and needed. Areas without specific park programs will necessitate
some consideration of this issue.
Comment.-
The
omment.The list of potential recipients in paragraph 3 should be prioritized to eliminate any
potential "competition" for funds. Governmental agencies should have priority over
non-profits or other providers. More importantly, whichever agency is the primary
provider for the particular geographic area should receive the funds, or have right of .
first refusal for the funds. For example, in-lieu fees from a project approved in the
unincorporated area should go to the agency with park facilities most proximate to the
development, and not necessarily to the agency that serves the larger unincorporated
area.
Response:
I agree, but this will have to be done on an area-by-area basis. The final decision on
any allocation will be with the Planning Commission or the Board. Recognition will
be' made of existing entities that provide park facilities and they will be given
preference. It should be understood that all future situations cannot be accounted for
at this time.
Comment:
Paragraph 5 appears to add a redundant level of review since recipient agencies are
responsible to review proposals, plans, and cost estimates. Is this provision oriented
toward non-governmental agencies? What is the county's intent with this paragraph?
Response:
Danville has a very professional and sophisticated parks program. Submittal of the
existing facility plan with an indication of the affect of the county's contribution
appears, at this time, to be adequate from Danville. All of the other areas in the county
are not on the same footing. The county doesn't wish to spend money on unfeasible
proj ects.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 11
(8/21/97)
s a
Comment:
Paragraph 6 implies that the county is not going to disburse the fees to'eligible agencies
after collection from developers, but rather is going to reimburse agencies for expenses
incurred. Is the county's intent to change the program from disbursement to
reimbursement?
Response:
This issue has not been resolved.
Comment:
Will the town or other appropriate agencies be consulted if the developer builds
facilities as described in paragraph 7? Also, what is the "flood control procedure"
referred to in paragraph 7?
Response:
Yes, our whole process is intended.to become more certain in this regard. Should the
developer change their position after tentative map approval, I would expect we return
to the planning commission. The flood control reimbursement procedure is a set
process with which most developers are familiar.
Comment:
Paragraph 9 could be restated to read: "The administrative use of in-lieu fees by the
county may include:"
Response:
Incorporated into text.
VA:dg
parkfnO 12
(8/21/97)
Comment:
The proposed guidelines should incorporate any pre-existing agreements currently
governing the distribution of in-lieu fees.
Response:
Incorporated into text, though some clarification may be necessary depending on nature
of the agreement.
Final Remarks:
Danville's effort put into review of the proposal is greatly appreciated, as well as their
effort to provide high quality parks for the community.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 13
(8121/97)
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM
EL SOBRANTE SERVICE AREA R-9
Comment:
As indicated, we have been successfully involved in creating recreational opportunities
for almost twenty years in our area with the procedures set up by the state and county.
Specifically, what recent problem regarding procedures encouraged the Board of
Supervisors to direct implementation of the new procedures?
Response:
A serious problem occurred in 1994 regarding the incorrect transfer of funds from
Alamo census accounts to Danville census accounts. Based on county policy, there
was no legal responsibility to give the money to either Danville or R-7A. Rather, it
occurred by condition of approval which could be modified or expectation which
.carries no protection at all.
As I investigated this problem, I found that the entire system was based on informal
assumptions and agreements. Standard procedures of accountability were not in force
nor was there any effort to maintain standards of nexus. We saw problems ion other
areas of the county. There have not been any problems with R-9 in the past and we
expect R-9 to be the recipient of funds in the future. I suggest, however, that in the
event the following hypothetical situation occurs, we have no way of dealing with it.
A development in unincorporated El Sobrante is to be built across the
street from a park in the City of Richmond. The park is strapped for cash
and the supporters of that facility claim they have a higher level of nexus.
What should the county do if there is no process to follow?
VA:dg
parkfiid3 14
(8/21/97)
Comment:
How will the new procedures affect the advisory committees presently engaged in
creating recreational opportunities?
Response.-
The
esponse:The planner in charge of the application should inform you at the time of subdivision
approval that there will be a potential for park fees/facilities. Prior to approval if the
development and conditions, your committee will be able to determine whether land
or fees will be provided, the extent of fees,the extent of potential credits, and any other
proposals made by the development. The district can offer recommendations and even
enter into negotiations prior to approval rather than simply be a recipient of park
facilities/fees previously decided and arranged by others. If others are interested in the
fees, you will be aware of that early on.
Comment:
The recommendations indicate that after the new procedures are adopted, staff will set
up guidelines. What are those guidelines?
Response:
The guidelines will be written as criteria fbr agreements. They will define
responsibilities for expenditures and recordkeeping so that if the developer or
homeowner challenges the expenditure, there will be a record. The guidelines will be
reviewed and revised periodically as changes in the law and other circumstances
warrant.
Comment:
There will be a fiscal impact on the departments administering the new procedures.
Specifically, what are the costs related to the newly recommended procedures?
VA:dg
parkfid3 15
(8/21/97)
Response:
There has always been fiscal impacts on the departments. The Board has directed us
to be more attentive to charging for work performed. The actual developer fees will
not be touched. The charges will be billed to interest accrued, up to 15% of the
interest, while the fees sit in accounts prior to expenditure. This billing will be based
on timesheet auditing.
Comment:
The new procedures recommended indicate "an organization that may be incorporated
non-profit that is developing facilities", may be disbursed funds. Does this mean"funds
may be distributed to for example, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts, Boy_ Scouts,
Senior Groups, local recreation groups?
Response:
In cases-where there is no service district, no city nearby who will provide facilities for
the funds, we will work with little leagues and similar groups to develop facilities so
that facilities get built. For many reasons, we prefer working with government entities,
however, it is more important to get facilities built.
Comment:
Will funding in one area possibly benefit another area if the Board of Supervisors find
a special project will benefit the county parks master plan?
Response:
First,we need a master plan. Second, "another area" would depend on the community.
We would look at the local park planning process. Are there any facilities in
existence? Is there any plan for their development or enhancement? Is there a regional
facility?
VA:dg
parkfnd3 16
(8/21197)
Comment:
In the General Provisions Attachment A, why is "The Greater Alamo Area and East
County Area" singled out, what about West County?
Response:
This question is answered in the first comment/response. Alamo just happened to be
the first place the problem erupted. We expect diminishing funds will inevitably make
many areas more sensitive and competitive.
Comment:
The trust administration procedures indicate funds may be transferred to the county
service area, district city or association. Please explain this procedures.
Response:
This indicates identification of where the Auditor may transfer funds. The simplest is
into an account on behalf of a service district. 'We do not include individuals, rather
organizations that can demonstrate the ability to maintain the ability once_ built,
solvency and the ability to perform. This process supports the priority position of
service districts. However, there are two problems; what happens if there is no service
district in the area and how do we maintain accountability for the money since, by, law
the county is responsible?
Comment:
Insert at 3.a. "Priority will be given to all board of supervisor-appointed citizen
advisory committees."
Response:
Incorporated into text.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 17
(8/21/97)
Comment:
Delete 3.b.
Response:
Cannot follow this recommendation. We have many current city recipients.
Comment:
Add to 1: "Board-appointed CAC's will be informed of estimated time required for
completion of project."
Response:
Incorporated into text.
Comment:
Change 3.e. to read "...as determined by the local CAC and submitted to the
Community Development Director."
Response:
County is financial liable for the money, not the CAC. Cannot delegate authority, but
CAC will retain position as primary spokesman for the community.
Comment:
Is 7. necessary?
Response:
Yes, required by law.
VA:dg
parkfid3 18
(8/21/97)
CK >
Final Remarks:
Staff greatly appreciates your questions and recommendations.
VA-.dg
parkf id3 19
(8121197)
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FROM EL SOBRANTE MAC
Comment:
The following is the text of a letter dated June 11, 1997 to the Chair of the Board of
Supervisors from Rick Gulledge, Vice Chair ESMAC.
It is without any regret whatsoever that the ESMAC in representing the residents of El
Sobrante must totally reject the communication methods utilized by your GMEDA
Director, Valentin Alexeeff. Some months ago,-he appeared before our Council to
explain the merits and reasons for his "ZADSI" (Zoning and Streamlining
Development Issue) document presented at the Kensington MAC meeting in August
1996. At our meeting he assured us," I see no reason why you (El Sobrante) would be
(negatively) impacted. You've (our three advisory groups) always been good about
getting back to us (on matters we've referred to you)".
After reading Alexeeff`s May 21 letter about his proposed rewriting of the Park Fee
Process, it is unquestionable that our residents' inalienable rights to proper disclosure
have been completely ignored. If you don't tell us, we can't tell them. There is nothing
in the new "Process" to indicate that GMEDA and/or staff County will even know that
there is a twenty year faithful CSA R-9(Recreation) Advisory Committee, an equally
stewarded El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee and a
popularly elected and veracious MAC in El Sobrante. The reference in Section I to "...
interested parties in the vicinity..." is not sufficient to inform staff of the historical and
critically important role of local advisory groups throughout County, even if they are
not m the Maddy book. In unincorporated El Sobrante, our R-9 members have always
referred Park Mitigation Fee recommendations to the Board for approval. The
permissive alternatives referred to in Section 3 are not acceptable.
Additionally, in this case, it is County that has not been good about getting back to us.
On October 8, 1996 the previous quorum directed GMEDA to develop a new park
district fund disbursement plan in cooperation with affected departments. We consider
our local R-9 to be an affected department. Yet, Alexeeff waited until the end of
VA:dg
parkfnO 20
(8/21/97)
l
May 1997 to inform anyone on this end. He now writes that you have given us until
July 21 to get back to him. It wasn't until June 10 that every member of the R-9 was
provided with a copy,-of the GMEDA proposal. That leaves only one regularly
scheduled R-9 meeting to discuss and decide what to do before your deadline. Not
even your Board gets things done so expeditiously. Please, consider what we must.
This instance may be an indication of how GMEDA/CDD intends to carry through
with Section 1.
Since we have not had sufficient notification to get even the 60 days you promised and
because we believe Alexeeff proposal needs extensive modifications"which can only
be arrived at through time consuming careful consideration, after we've received
referred to by Alexeeff, but not yet provided additional information"and mindful of the
predictable constraints inevitable at this time of year, we respectfully request that this
matter not appear.on the Board's Agenda for decisive action before September.
Response:
The following is the.text of a letter to Mr. Gulledge dated August 26, 1997 in response
t0"ESMAC's comments.
I would like to respond to your letter to the Board of Supervisors dated June 11, 1997
regarding the process, for distributing park fees. You have also expressed frustration
in other venues regarding your role in public procedures.
It has taken me a long time to respond, but I needed two things. First, I needed to see
other responses in connection with the park fee proposal to make this part of the
response package to the proposal. Second, the issues you raised in your letter troubled
me and I wanted to think about the substance of your question rather than give you a
more conventional response. The response is not based on Board policy or
administrative procedure. I am offering my observations based on 25+ years in the
field.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 21
(8/21/97)
Your concerns are not unique to this county. Since the 60's, the role of citizens in the
government process has been evolving and many conflicts have occurred. The changes
in expectations of participation hinge on three issues. The first is based on the fact that
citizen participation is undefined. It has changed with the times. It is not clear what
is an appropriate level of citizen participation now or whether it be the same next year.
The second issue relates to the balance between efficiency and participation. Staff is
continually told to do more with less and to expedite actions through directives,
performance objectives and budgets. Concurrently, citizens want more attention,
support and voice. The most efficient means of decision making is to have a single
decision maker with delegated powers who renders decisions on the spot. The most
participatory form of decision making is a town hall meeting structure where no vote
is taken until all issues are aired and coalitions developed, ending in a mass vote on the
issue, replacing representative democracy with direct democracy. Nearly all
jurisdictions are grappling with something in between.
The third issue relates to resources. Employees are required to make recommendations,
implement decisions, and to justify actions as fair and impartial. Government, in
seeking a balance; must constantly determine whether its primary objective is
output—the provision of infrastructure and services (which favors approval), or
extended process—the effort to have everyone feel satisfied with the outcome (which
may favor delay or denial). Under the best circumstances, both quality outcome and
satisfactory public acceptance occurs. To set up appropriate participation mechanisms
takes resources currently not budgeted in the process.
Within this context, let me turn to the issue of the development of park fee distribution
and why R-9 Citizens Advisory Committee was not included at the initiation of the
process. The mechanics of how fees would be monitored, how they would be
disbursed, how recordkeeping will occur, is an auditing function. Actually, it is the
primary responsibility of auditors. The final decision on many of these issues will be
up to the Auditor, County Counsel or other staff member. As we focused on this issue,
VA:dg
parkfid3 22
(8/21/97)
additional questions of concern popped up and we tried to address them, resolve them,
and prepare a proposal for the Board. If we had tried to include R-9 from the
beginning, all similar bodies would have to have been invited, causing a significant
scheduling problem night vs. day meetings, noticing, time of introduction, and
training on the issues. The process, which was lengthy, would have taken much more
time.
Secondly, the process required a degree of self-evaluation. Staff will accept criticism
in private or evaluate problems with other staff, but seek not to do so in public, except
under extreme circumstances. The atmosphere would have placed everyone on the
defensive. The discussion would have been more oriented to justification and less
likely toward restructuring or resolving. Since the normal process of public review of
an administrative process occurs when the process comes before the Board of
Supervisors, a participation process was included and anticipated. The Board
specifically requested a sixty-day circulation to give -all potential participants an
opportunity to comment. We sent notices to sixty interested parties. In response, we
received comments from five.
Bureaucratic systems have evolved over decades. They are designed to be repetitive,
systematic, consistent and followed by the average person. This enables vast quantities
of work to be produced in both public and private sectors, but it also is extremely
resistant to change.
When there is a problem and something appears dysfunctional, someone must make
a determination that is significant enough that it needs to be corrected. Next, a
determination must be made as to whether it should be patched, revised or replaced.
The overwhelming tendency is to do a patch job due to the time and energy required,
even when replacement will be better in the long run.
VA:dg
parkfnd3 23
(9/21/97)
The following are the most efficient steps I have found to accomplish administrative
change:
• Assembly of appropriate staff
• Identification of the problem and its causes
• Suggestions on how to fix the problem
• Identification of constraints
• Development of a concept approach with alternatives
• Internal review and comment
• Response and rewrite (Where the issue is entirely administrative, adoption
occurs here)
• Submission to the appropriate committee in public forum
• Reaction, questions, direction from policy body and resulting participation
• Revision and review of proposal _
• Presentation in public forum for comment
• Reaction and response to comment
• Final adoption
To many people, particularly in the private sector, this appears to be unbelievably
inefficient and unwieldy. The private sector view is that the CEO should just say
"do it" and it should be done virtually instantly. Due to the complexity of society,
there are numerous interests that defend aspects of any program. Without the
purposeful enthusiastic participation of staff, recommendation may not address the
range of interests and legal constraints waiting for the proposal. The desired staff role
in any such process needs to be introspective, forward thinking, anticipatory, problem
solving, and interested in offering experience regarding potential conflicts and traps.
Under these circumstances, a desired outcome has a better chance to emerge.
A public process is necessary to define issues, address problems, create a wide range
of options and approaches, indicate potential effects on neighborhoods or populations,
offer local perspectives, incorporate a broad range of experiences, and combine
different interests into a single forum. If a master parks plan is to be prepared, the first
issue should be the mechanism to include the widest range of views and information
regarding park needs, park problems, and park opportunities.
VA:dg
parkfid3 24
(8/21/97)
Public processes are set up for local input or bureaucratic oversight include
commissions, grand juries, advisory committees, MAC's, and so forth. Their roles,
timing, and scope of authority should be clearly defined to be effective.
If a public process is to move into implementation, staff will be required to carry out
the recommendations. When directions are conflicting, when directions suggest
actions prevented by statute or ordinance, when the resources required are beyond
what's available, or when staff is asked to contradict prior training and direction, the
likelihood of implementation is low. The most successful results occur when the roles
of the public and staff are clear and distinct, and staff is brought in early into the
process to identify problems and solve them as the deliberation process proceeds.
In response to the concern over the sixty day review period, I am receiving questions
every week on how to treat new fees within the current faulty process. I will be greatly
°'relieved when an adopted process is in place. When we have the resources to initiate
a master parks program, we will include citizen committees from the beginning.
The question that remains is, "where do we go from here?" I am hoping that time and
circumstance will enable me to review the current role of the MACs with MAC
members and others, and offer recommendations to the county. This will also lead to
additional thoughts about citizen participation.
Please accept the assurance that my goal is not to reduce citizen participation. My
underlying assumption is that we should have as much citizen participation as we can
afford. This is no small task since developers voice the fact that they should not have
to pay for extensive participation and the county has such pressing needs in safety,
social welfare, and health areas that its finances are stretched to the limit. We, as a
;community, will need to be focused and creative in resolving this issue.
VA:dg
parkf iO 25
(8/21/97)
ATTACHMENT 4
DCSITE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
Post Office Box F • Brentwood, CA 94513 • Phone (510) 634-8500
b
Val Alexeeff, Director Cni Ever 23, 1997
Growth Management and Cosrq C��«1rY
Economic Development Agency SEP
651 Pine Street, No. Wing, Second Floor 241997
Martinez, CA 94553-1213
Re: Proposed Park Fee Process
Recommendations by OMAC
TRANSMITTAL
WE ARE SENDING: via U.S. mail
OMAC recommendations regarding the revised Park Dedication Fee process
THESE ARE BEING SENT:
( ► For your approval ( 1 Approved as noted ( ) Resubmit for approval
(xx) For your use ( )Approved as submitted ( ) Submit copies for distribution
( ) For your review ( 1 Approved as changed ( 1 Returned for corrections
(xx) For your consideration ( ) Rejected as noted ( 1 For your signature
NOTES:
Pursuant to your memo dated September 11, 1997, 1 have had the OMAC Parks and Library
Subcommittee and subsequently the OMAC review and make their recommendations regarding the
proposed park dedication fee process as revised (9/21/97). They recommend the Board adopt the
revised version with one change to provide for semi-annual rather than periodic (unspecified)
accounting reports being available to the local park entities.
Both the Parks Subcommittee and the OMAC maintain their requests for an accounting of the Park
Dedication Fund to date. They desire to see a full income accounting showing funds derived from
each subdivision in the Oakley area, with numbers of units paid and numbers of units yet to be
paid, and trust fund interest earned applied to the accounts. They have several projects under
current planning that will be dependent on the park dedication funds.
Again, could you please keep me informed as to the status of both the proposed park fee process
and the park dedication trust fund status, I will make that information available to the OMAC and
the Parks Subcommittee.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to phone or fax me at (510) 634-8500.
SINCERELY:
oert
9S. Heitmeyer
Staff to The OMAC Parks & Library Subcommittee it
cc: Supervisor Joe Canciamilla
Specialists in Planning• Site Design• Landscape Architecture
r- s
OAKLEY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
y'
MEETING ON September 22, 1997 at 7:30 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
PROPOSED PARK FEE PROCESS FOR COLLECTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND MONITORING
(revised)
At their regular meeting of September 15, 1997, the OMAC Parks and Library Subcommittee
conducted a study session regarding the proposed Park Dedication Fund Disbursement Procedure
as revised 8/21/97 from Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development
Agency. The Subcommittee unanimously voted its recommendation to OMAC to request the Board
of Supervisors to adopt the revised version with the exception of the following recommended
change: _
In paragraph 11, thew k "periodic" a changed _ "semi-annual"
.Most of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee and the GMAC, and some by other
communities have been incorporated into the currently proposed document. The one final concern
is that the Subcommittee feels that accounting reports should be made available to the local park
entities on a regular semi-annual basis. The OMAC has had experience with attempting to get
accounting of the Park Dedication and Landscape & Lighting Funds in a timely fashion. It should
take no time at all to print a recap from the computer once the funds have been properly reviewed
and are computerized with subdivision information and kept up to date as proposed by Mr.
Alexeeff. Accounting by subdivision is important as currently the funds are attributed to census
tracts which do not necessarily coincide with a communities service sphere.
Note that change requested to this document is for the following reasons:
1. To ensure a proper accounting of all fees collected and all expenses paid in connection
with the Park Dedication In-lieu Fund - with an accounting available at set times so that
capital programs and budgets may be prepared or reviewed.
APPROVED-
The Oakley Mu ipa7NO visory Committee on this Date
Vote: Yes
Aaron Meadows, Chairman
Craig Williams
Howard Hobbs
Enrico Cinquini
Spencer Hough
Lenny Byer
Jaime Bennett `: -w,
Warren Hays-Alternate :`;. '*4' . ., r,,'�' �, y.
•;..� At
:;h
Parks & Library Subcommittee
Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee
'arAW ho
i
C m ''
a
4 � Su5
1 � Y
xi
I it
00
A
k g
Iq it i�
J •
�Vl
®
1
` 1
ry
1
• I
Six Aj
ui
co
,12
^? Q
� a
p LLI n
• 00 t' � � - G� �
gr�
...
t
..:' us
ply♦ �nJ�pj
1 �
MPr
zii-
Iw
NNSi �nl
of
a�
Ru
Mll
2
�� ♦fC i C ? # SK\{ S V� LU
uj
v�
UA
C��k y f •j" GS tl/