Campbell staff defend park impact fees as developers warn costs can block housing projects

City recreation and public works staff told the Campbell Planning Commission on May 26 that parkland dedication fees are legally authorized mitigation tools and a primary way to ensure that new development contributes to parkland and capital projects.

"Parks and recreation opportunities are not optional amenities. They are essential public infrastructure," Recreation and Community Services Director Natasha Bissell told the commission, urging that fees help preserve park access in an already land-constrained city.

Senior civil engineer Roger Stores provided the technical background: park fees are calculated using household-occupancy assumptions and an acre-per-resident standard derived from the Quimby Act and local policy. Stores said the citys 2019 fee study set the valuation at $3.96 million per acre after annual CPI adjustments, producing current fee levels of roughly $32,000 for a single-family unit and about $23,000 per multifamily unit. He noted that most new projects pay in-lieu fees rather than dedicate land and that fee revenue is typically programmed for acquisitions and large capital rehabilitation projects, not routine deferred maintenance.

Commissioners asked whether fees can be used for rehabilitation, the timing of fee payment, and whether private on-site amenities can offset fees. Staff said park funds can be used for new park acquisition or significant rehabilitation (for example, a new playground or a major pool renovation) but cannot substitute for ongoing deferred maintenance. For timing, staff said fees are often due at subdivision or at occupancy for apartment projects; some state-level changes allow deferral in certain cases, but Quimby-related fees are not automatically covered by recent AB 600-type deferrals.

The hearing featured contrasting public views. Local residents and a landscape architect urged the commission not to remove park fees, arguing the funds enable acquisitions and leverage donations. A developer representative, Andrew Rosenberg of Pacific Development, said the current fee level for multifamily units can render projects infeasible: "At roughly $23,000 per unit, the fee has a meaningful impact on the feasibility of housing...on a 300-unit project you're talking about nearly $7 million in just park fees alone," he said, and urged staff and the commission to consider recalibrating fees for high-density projects or crediting on-site public amenities where appropriate.

Staff and commissioners acknowledged the tension between meeting state housing obligations and preserving parks. Commissioners asked staff to return with additional detail on how fees are spent and how prospective major projects could be phased into CIP programming. No policy changes were adopted at the meeting; staff described the presentation as informational and said any changes to park fees would require council consideration.