|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Did you know that Redwood City is near the bottom of all the cities in San Mateo County when it comes to how much parkland we have per capita? Our parks, which provide recreation, togetherness and access to nature to tens of thousands of community members, are in need of funding.
And yet, some on the Redwood City Council are considering cutting the fees that certain proposed new developments pay towards parks. When the City Council votes on this issue, they should vote to require the developers to pay their fair share of the fees that our parks need.
Our parks need funding so they can serve our entire community
All cities in our region impose fees, known as “impact fees,” on some new development projects to mitigate the impacts those developments create for things like transportation, affordable housing, and parks. For example, when a new residential development is built, new residents are coming to live in Redwood City, which means more people will be using city parks. Redwood City’s parks impact fee is intended to mitigate the increased burden on our parks by funding the purchase of additional parkland and capital improvements to park facilities. But it’s important to note that the parks impact fee is only high enough to offset the impact of new development on the parks system — it’s not intended to (and by law, it cannot) put the city in a better place than we were in before the new development happened.
At the May 6 city council meeting, the Council considered a proposal that some development applications in the downtown area should be given a discount on park impact fees. Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica and Councilmembers Alicia Aguirre and Kaia Eakin stated that they were not in favor of any discounts, while Mayor Jeff Gee and council members Elmer Martinez Saballos and Chris Sturken stated that they wanted to grant a 50% discount to nine market-rate multifamily residential projects that submitted their development applications prior to July 2022. (Council member Diane Howard was absent.) Because city staff had not prepared an official resolution for the Council to vote on, there was no vote, but this issue will come back to the Council for a vote in the near future.
According to the city staff report, the 50% discount for those nine development projects would result in a loss of at least $8.1 million in park impact fees. (The Council also considered granting a complete exemption for certain other projects, which would have increased the loss to the city to $18.6 million, but decided not to go that route.)
Redwood City leads the county on housing, but we’re at the bottom for parkland
Why would the City Council even consider depriving the city of the full amount of park impact fees? The members of the City Council who expressed support for cutting the park impact fees spoke of the need for more housing and their fear that paying the full fees would be too burdensome on the developers. (It should be noted that only market-rate housing units would have to pay the park impact fee – low-income affordable housing units are already exempt.)
Redwood City is performing extremely well on encouraging new housing projects – we were the first city in San Mateo County to have our Housing Element approved, and we received a “Prohousing Designation” from the state in recognition of our many efforts to facilitate housing development. While many other cities have struggled to fulfill their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers, Redwood City set an ambitious target of building 150% of the RHNA requirement from the state of California. These efforts are truly laudable; we should all feel proud that Redwood City is doing more than our part to help address the housing crisis.
Unfortunately, Redwood City is not doing nearly so well in providing parks and open space for our residents. At the May 6 meeting, city staff stated that Redwood City is not only below the goal set by the state of California of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents – we’re near the bottom in all of San Mateo County when it comes to providing enough parkland for our population. Considering that we’re also one of the most diverse cities in the county, this lack of adequate parks and open space for our community is a sad commentary on inequities in our society when it comes to giving people access to nature close to home.
Parks are necessary for public health, climate resilience and community cohesion
I’ve written before about the critical importance of parks and green space in cities. Studies have shown that spending time in nature has real, quantifiable health benefits. It can lower your stress hormone levels, reduce blood pressure, and even reduce your cancer risk. When you’re in a wooded area like Redwood City’s Stulsaft Park, you’re inhaling compounds that actually improve your body’s ability to fight disease and infection. A study on kids with ADHD showed they were better able to concentrate on schoolwork after walking through or playing in a park – and the greener the park, the greater the reduction in ADHD symptoms.
Parks are also important for resilience to climate change. Urban green space counteracts extreme heat waves and absorbs water during storms and flood events. Trees and vegetation help clean our air and provide habitat for birds, butterflies and insect pollinators.
Parks are also important for community cohesion. Neighborhoods are safer and crime rates are lower when there’s a park where residents can spend time and get to know each other.
The bottom line is that parks are necessary for a healthy and thriving community. Building more housing while not concurrently creating more parkland will reduce everyone’s quality of life, health, and safety.
Funding for parks is an equity issue
Redwood City’s parks are not only overburdened and need more funding, but they are also not equitably distributed across the city. On the Redwood City Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, we’re exploring ways to address this problem. We want everyone in the city, no matter where they live or what their household income is, to be able to enjoy the benefits of our park system. But we can’t do it without adequate funding.
As a PRCS Commissioner, I’m extremely proud of our fantastic parks department. They do so much for our community, from Music on the Square and Pub in the Park, to the Fair Oaks Community Center which provides essential services to residents in need including food, housing assistance, and help navigating the process of applying for public benefits. They’re also currently working hard on bringing some plans for new parks to fruition in our downtown (where most of our new housing is located) and renovating Hoover Park (the neighborhood park for one of our most marginalized communities). But again, they can’t do it without adequate funding.
When the issue of whether to cut park impact fees comes back to the Redwood City Council, I hope they will give our parks the love they deserve and vote to protect the city’s park impact fees.
