News

City looks to tweak developer fees for park space

Mountain View city officials will begin brainstorming ways to rework how they calculate park fees on new development, but it will require a difficult balance. While pretty much everyone wants to see more parkland for the community, the city's high fees are reportedly scaring away developers from building new housing.

At the Oct. 15 meeting, City Council members agreed they needed to bring several aspects of the park fees back to the drawing board. In a late-night study session, the council gave broad direction to city staff to analyze ways to give developers more flexibility to fulfill their park requirements.

The background of this discussion centered on North Bayshore, which is expected to begin a spree of housing construction in the coming years. But developers and a city-commissioned study found that as property values have skyrocketed, city development fees to fund parks and schools have also risen to new heights. Since 2016, park fees alone have reportedly raised the cost of building a single North Bayshore apartment by more than $30,000.

Those higher housing costs are reverberating throughout the rest of Mountain View, said John Hickey of SummerHill Homes. Other developers expressed similar concerns.

"Park fees have increased dramatically and now it's at the point where it's impeding housing," Hickey said. "We believe there's some opportunities to make the parkland ordinance more uniform so it doesn't discourage new development."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

By the numbers, North Bayshore is the most parkland-rich region of the city. The neighborhood has more than 980 acres of open space, largely thanks to Shoreline Park and golf course.

This can make the city's parks data a little bit deceptive. On paper, the parks acreage in Mountain View actually looks pretty good, with more than 13.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The city stated goal is to have 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

But city parks officials point out that if they exclude the North Bayshore area, including Shoreline Park, then these numbers across the rest of the city plummet to 2.6 acres per 1,000 residents. For that reason, city officials believe many areas of the city are deficient in parks even though the city's ratio as a whole looks pretty good.

To design a better parks fee system, city officials decided they needed to revisit their categories for housing projects. Right now, the fees are calculated under a formula that depends on many factors, including the density, acreage and number of units. The council decided it may make sense to tweak that formula by adding in new density tiers that would account for large-scale housing developments of small apartments or studios.

The City Council also expressed interest in looking at the number of bedrooms, not housing units, as a new way to figure out park fees. Councilman Chris Clark expressed wariness about this idea, saying it was essentially telling developers to build studios because larger apartments would carry higher costs.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

City leaders also discussed offering more incentives for housing developers to build private parks and recreation amenities. This would be similar to a special concession that the council granted to the Sobrato Organization for a 635-unit apartment complex to be built at 1255 Pear Ave. In that project, city officials agreed to give Sobrato an $8 million "open space credit" for building a private park as long as the developer made it accessible to the public.

In a similar idea, city staff proposed giving a smaller credit to housing developers that build private, residents-only parks and facilities. For example, a private swimming pool at a luxury compound would still benefit everyone because it would mean fewer people would be using the city's public pool, Community Services Director John Marchant said.

It was an idea that drew a mixed reaction. Some council members balked at the notion of encouraging a hodgepodge of private parks with different access rules. A better idea would be to have the city nudge developers to dedicate land for public use, said Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga.

"I don't want our city to become more gated communities and siloed off," she said. "I don't know how people will know what's private and what's open to the public."

Despite those reservations, the council agreed to allow city staff to study different options.

Across the board, the City Council favored putting higher fees for parks on office and commercial developers. City staff members said they will look into a new nexus study to investigate higher fees.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

City looks to tweak developer fees for park space

by Mark Noack / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 9:56 am

Mountain View city officials will begin brainstorming ways to rework how they calculate park fees on new development, but it will require a difficult balance. While pretty much everyone wants to see more parkland for the community, the city's high fees are reportedly scaring away developers from building new housing.

At the Oct. 15 meeting, City Council members agreed they needed to bring several aspects of the park fees back to the drawing board. In a late-night study session, the council gave broad direction to city staff to analyze ways to give developers more flexibility to fulfill their park requirements.

The background of this discussion centered on North Bayshore, which is expected to begin a spree of housing construction in the coming years. But developers and a city-commissioned study found that as property values have skyrocketed, city development fees to fund parks and schools have also risen to new heights. Since 2016, park fees alone have reportedly raised the cost of building a single North Bayshore apartment by more than $30,000.

Those higher housing costs are reverberating throughout the rest of Mountain View, said John Hickey of SummerHill Homes. Other developers expressed similar concerns.

"Park fees have increased dramatically and now it's at the point where it's impeding housing," Hickey said. "We believe there's some opportunities to make the parkland ordinance more uniform so it doesn't discourage new development."

By the numbers, North Bayshore is the most parkland-rich region of the city. The neighborhood has more than 980 acres of open space, largely thanks to Shoreline Park and golf course.

This can make the city's parks data a little bit deceptive. On paper, the parks acreage in Mountain View actually looks pretty good, with more than 13.5 acres per 1,000 residents. The city stated goal is to have 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

But city parks officials point out that if they exclude the North Bayshore area, including Shoreline Park, then these numbers across the rest of the city plummet to 2.6 acres per 1,000 residents. For that reason, city officials believe many areas of the city are deficient in parks even though the city's ratio as a whole looks pretty good.

To design a better parks fee system, city officials decided they needed to revisit their categories for housing projects. Right now, the fees are calculated under a formula that depends on many factors, including the density, acreage and number of units. The council decided it may make sense to tweak that formula by adding in new density tiers that would account for large-scale housing developments of small apartments or studios.

The City Council also expressed interest in looking at the number of bedrooms, not housing units, as a new way to figure out park fees. Councilman Chris Clark expressed wariness about this idea, saying it was essentially telling developers to build studios because larger apartments would carry higher costs.

City leaders also discussed offering more incentives for housing developers to build private parks and recreation amenities. This would be similar to a special concession that the council granted to the Sobrato Organization for a 635-unit apartment complex to be built at 1255 Pear Ave. In that project, city officials agreed to give Sobrato an $8 million "open space credit" for building a private park as long as the developer made it accessible to the public.

In a similar idea, city staff proposed giving a smaller credit to housing developers that build private, residents-only parks and facilities. For example, a private swimming pool at a luxury compound would still benefit everyone because it would mean fewer people would be using the city's public pool, Community Services Director John Marchant said.

It was an idea that drew a mixed reaction. Some council members balked at the notion of encouraging a hodgepodge of private parks with different access rules. A better idea would be to have the city nudge developers to dedicate land for public use, said Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga.

"I don't want our city to become more gated communities and siloed off," she said. "I don't know how people will know what's private and what's open to the public."

Despite those reservations, the council agreed to allow city staff to study different options.

Across the board, the City Council favored putting higher fees for parks on office and commercial developers. City staff members said they will look into a new nexus study to investigate higher fees.

Comments

Dan Waylonis
Registered user
Jackson Park
on Oct 25, 2019 at 3:03 pm
Dan Waylonis, Jackson Park
Registered user
on Oct 25, 2019 at 3:03 pm

This is why demand for housing outstrips supply. The city policies are anti-development and the prices reflect that.

I believe that 4-6 story apartment developments along El Camino and 101 should be immediately approved.


Tina
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2019 at 9:18 am
Tina, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2019 at 9:18 am

Why are the fees so high? I have a good idea why. Consultants!!! A one acre park in MTN view has a budget of 1.5 million, I kid you not! The new garden plots at Latham were 1.2 million. This is a budget for some towns in America for a year. Doesn't the city have staff that can design and build a park? I could have hired my own gardeners to do both parks for a quarter of what we tax payers have to pay. It's outrageous how the City spends our money.


Question
another community
on Oct 26, 2019 at 9:02 pm
Question , another community
on Oct 26, 2019 at 9:02 pm

Is this the decision that is delaying the possible purchase of the Kohl’s site by LASD?


User
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2019 at 9:57 pm
User, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2019 at 9:57 pm

Park fees are effectively indexed currently against the community "impact" of net new residents. For example, if a residential project will bring in 500 new residents today, then the law allows the city to charge fees to build park facilities to accomodate those 500 new residents.

Alas, the cost to build new parks is driven by two significant things. (1) The cost to acquire land in Mountain View, (2) the cost to improve vacant lots with comparable park facilities.

Both of these costs are effectively driven by supply and demand. With land in Mountain View in such high demand for redevelopment, the cost per acre has increased dramatically over the past few years. Similarly, the cost to find contractors to build park facilities has gone up as demand for workers has increased.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.