Santa Paula Planning Commission recommends ordinance to update development code, align impact-fee timing with state law

The Santa Paula Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance updating the city's development code and related definitions, including changes to how and when development impact fees can be collected under state law. The commission moved adoption of Resolution No. 3865 and found the proposed ordinance exempt from, or not a project under, the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the motion.

Planning staff told the commission the items before them are the second set of development-code updates in an ongoing municipal-code revision. "SB 937 passed last year and [is] effective 01/01/2025," the presenter said, and the proposed changes are intended "to bring alignment to the new Chapter 16, with state law." The presentation said the principal concrete change from state law affects the timing of development impact fees: in qualifying housing projects fees cannot be collected until later in the project, generally when a certificate of occupancy is issued rather than up front.

The ordinance package includes renumbering and cleanup edits to several sections of the development code and municipal code references. Staff described grammatical edits and title changes (for example, replacing "planning director" with "director" to reflect current city staffing) and said some definitions were updated to match existing city terminology such as the city's use of "second dwelling" in accessory-dwelling-unit language. Staff also said this set follows the ADU amendments the commission reviewed previously.

Commissioners asked for clarifications on several points. One commissioner asked whether impact fees in the chapter apply to commercial as well as residential projects; staff pointed to the applicability language in the packet (cited as page 21) and summarized that the chapter applies to "all new development projects," and that subsection B lists permitted uses for fee revenue. On building height the commission asked about changing the measurement term from "ground level" to "grade." Staff said the change reflects floodplain and engineering practice and that height would be measured from finished grade rather than an undefined "ground level," noting that FEMA and civil-engineering requirements inform the measurement.

At the public hearing, staff moved the recommendation: "I'd like to move that, we recommend the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3865, recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance attached as Exhibit A and find that the adoption of the proposed ordinance is not a project or is otherwise exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act," said Chair Kelly when making the motion. A commissioner seconded the motion. A roll-call vote recorded "yes" from Commissioners Keith Sweater, Herbert, Dunkel, Vice Chair Auger and Chair Kelly; the motion carried unanimously.

Staff told the commission the municipal-code update will continue in stages: the presenter said the team plans to bring roughly seven to eight different sets of changes to the commission over time and to return later in the year and early next year with additional housekeeping language and other chapters. The presenter also said the work has involved city planning staff and outside consultants and that development-impact fees were one of the principal issues identified in the initial review.