Funding for local parks is under attack from developers who object to paying park impact fees, and cities who hope that reducing fees will spur more housing construction. But parks play a critical role in climate resilience and public health, especially for disadvantaged communities. That’s why Green Foothills is advocating for cities to prioritize park funding for the sake of public health, equity, and the environment.

How Parks Support Climate Resilience and Public Health

Parks, and other urban green spaces such as street trees, reduce neighborhood temperatures during hot weather. They also improve air quality, absorb and filter storm water, and provide habitat for insects and birds. They provide opportunities for people to experience nature close to home, which has measurable benefits for both mental and physical health. Parks also improve quality of life by serving as the social hub of a community – a place where family gatherings happen, where birthdays and special events are celebrated, and where friendships among neighbors are formed and strengthened.

Unfortunately, parks, trees, and other urban green spaces are not equitably distributed across racial and economic lines. A study by the Trust for Public Land found major disparities in access to parks across the nation. In San Jose, wealthier neighborhoods have over three times as much tree canopy as poorer neighborhoods –and are up to 5 degrees cooler during heat waves as a result. Funding that is dedicated towards increasing park acreage in low-income communities and communities of color is necessary to address these inequities. And as cities build new developments, it is important to ensure that the park system expands accordingly so that residents are not deprived of the benefits of green space.

Parks are not just a nice-to-have amenity; they are necessary to create truly sustainable communities. With the increase in climate risks such as flooding and extreme heat events, parks are more important than ever.

Park Impact Fees: Mitigating the Effects of Development

Most cities assess “impact fees” on new development, which the city uses to mitigate the development’s impact on the local community. For example, when a new development project is built, that means more residents or workers will be using a city’s parks, causing those parks to be at risk of overcrowding and overuse. Most cities in Silicon Valley impose park impact fees on new development to help pay for purchasing new parkland to ease the burden on existing parks.

It’s important to note that by law, park impact fees are only allowed to be high enough to mitigate the impact of new development; they can’t be used as a way to increase the amount of parkland per capita. To put it another way, park impact fees will never put a city in a better place than it was before the development happened – they can only get a city back to where it was before, in terms of the amount of parkland available per person.

And yet, at least two cities in our area have considered cutting park impact fees this year. And due to a recent Supreme Court ruling that impact fees must meet a more rigorous standard than before, we can expect more legal challenges from developers in the future. Our parks need us to protect their funding more than ever before.

A Tale of Two Cities: Park Impact Fees Under Attack

San Jose and Redwood City both considered cutting park impact fees this year, with very different results. While Redwood City narrowly avoided significant cuts to park impact fees, San Jose made major cuts and may soon approve even more.

San Jose’s city parks are chronically underfunded, with a backlog of more than $500 million in delayed parks maintenance. For years, the city has granted fee discounts for residential high-rise development in the Downtown neighborhood in the hope that it will encourage more housing, but with little success. In 2017, park impact fees for Downtown high-rises were significantly reduced, but according to City staff, only two new high-rises have been completed since then. In June of this year, the San Jose City Council once again cut park fees by 50%, even though the city’s own study acknowledged that these fees only account for a tiny fraction of the total cost of development and are unlikely to make the difference as to whether a project gets built.

Even more alarming, the City Council asked staff to explore similar cuts in park impact fees for all multi-family residential housing throughout the entire city. This could radically harm San Jose’s ability to provide enough parkland to serve the whole community. The findings from staff will be brought back to the City Council later this year; we will alert San Jose residents if the staff recommendations pose any further threats to San Jose parks funding.

Redwood City also looked at cutting park impact fees in 2024. After rolling back part of the city’s newly-updated park impact fee ordinance to eliminate fees on bedroom additions and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the City Council considered a proposal to exempt certain development projects from paying park impact fees. This could have resulted in a loss of more than $18 million in funding for Redwood City parks. Thankfully, a narrow majority on the Redwood City Council voted against any further park impact fee cuts.

Cutting Park Impact Fees is Unlikely to Result in More Housing

In both San Jose and Redwood City, the incentive for the city councils to explore cuts to park impact fees was the desire to spur more housing development. In our current housing crisis, we all want to encourage more housing, but all of the economic studies agree that park impact fees are a miniscule percentage of the total cost of building housing, and that cutting those fees will not be the magic bullet that enables stalled housing projects to be completed. Nevertheless, it often seems like every time there is an economic downturn or a difficult period for housing development, it’s our parks that are on the chopping block.

Proposition 4: A Lifeline for Parks?

California’s Proposition 4 (the “climate bond”), on the ballot this November, includes $700 million for creation and protection of parks and access to nature. If approved by voters, the bond would provide dedicated funding for new parks in parks-poor communities and would prioritize parks that provide climate resilience benefits like extreme heat mitigation and supporting biodiversity. Cities will have to apply for state grants in order to receive any of this funding, but for some neglected city park systems, Proposition 4 could prove to be the lifeline that is needed.

Green Foothills has endorsed Proposition 4, and we’re encouraging our supporters to vote Yes on this ballot measure. But the Proposition 4 funding won’t be enough to support all our parks, so for most cities, park impact fees will still be the main way to ensure sufficient park access for all.

What You Can Do

We will continue to watch for challenges to park impact fees in jurisdictions throughout San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Benito Counties, and will let you know if parks in your local area are under threat. If you’d like to hear from us on this topic, make sure we have your mailing address in addition to your email address so that we can include you in any email alerts that are specific to the city where you live.