Santa Maria commission advances draft to update Quimby park-fee rules; key credits and timing debated

The Recreation and Parks Commission on Tuesday advanced staff'proposed updates to the municipal code that would rename the city's subdivision-in-lieu charge the Quimby park fee and change how the fee is collected, credited and deferred.

The commission voted to ask staff to complete a draft ordinance for presentation to the City Council after a lengthy staff briefing and comment from builders and planning consultants.

The draft would keep the fee'collection language at the "earliest time allowed by law," rather than explicitly requiring payment at building-permit issuance. Staff said that preserves flexibility to collect at either building permit or certificate of occupancy depending on project size and financing; developers and the Home Builders Association urged clear wording that would permit collection at occupancy. "We're asking that all reference to paying the fees are clearly stated at occupancy," said Lori Tamura of Urban Planning Concepts, who spoke for the Home Builders Association.

Why it matters: The Quimby fee provides city funding to buy or improve public parkland as new residential development adds demand for recreation. Changes to collection timing, crediting and exemptions affect both developer cash flow and the city's ability to hold funds for park acquisitions or construction.

What staff proposed and what changed - Name and statutory reference: The draft changes Section 11-9.05 of the municipal code to use the common term "Quimby fee" (currently called "subdivision in lieu fee"). Staff said the change is primarily for clarity. - Timing of payment: Staff initially proposed payment at building permit; developers pressed for payment at certificate of occupancy to avoid up-front borrowing. City legal advice recommended leaving the ordinance at "the earliest time allowed by law" so staff can apply timing case-by-case. The commission endorsed staff'direction to finish the ordinance with that phrasing unless the commission later chooses to require payment at occupancy. - Private open-space credits: The current code allowed up to 60% credit for private open space; staff had proposed reducing the cap to 20%, then recommended 40% after developer feedback. The draft sets a 40% eligibility cap for privately owned, privately maintained recreational open space; staff noted projects could still be awarded lower credits depending on design and public access. - Combined-credit limit: The draft makes clear that total credits across subsections cannot exceed 40% in many circumstances; commissioners and builders flagged some internal inconsistencies in the draft where other sections still referenced 60% and asked staff to reconcile the text. - Flood-control basins and small "pocket park" credits: Staff proposed striking a historic clause that disallowed credit for land inundated in an average storm, arguing modern basin designs (tiered detention that preserves usable park areas most of the time) can be eligible for credit. The draft also removes a 1,500-square-foot provision from the old code; staff and builders discussed reinstating language to allow smaller "pocket park" credits (size to be clarified). - Senior conversions and credits: The existing code allowed the City Council the discretion to waive large portions of the fee for senior conversions. Staff proposed removing the dedicated senior-conversion section and handling such projects through the general reduction/credit provisions; the draft recommends a maximum 50% credit for senior conversion projects recommended by the commission and approved by council. Several commissioners said partial credit is preferable to a blanket waiver given increased maintenance costs. - Deferments: The draft keeps a process for deferred payment for qualifying low-income projects: half of the fee payable at building permit and the balance before issuance of the last certificate of occupancy, with interest and a 12-month payment window noted in the draft. Staff cited prior examples where deferments were used successfully (the Vandenberg Inn conversion and a Rancho Garden project, per the presentation). - Park-acreage standard: Consistent with state law and long-standing city practice, the code continues to use a 5-acres-per-1,000-residents target (state default is 3 acres per 1,000 unless a jurisdiction demonstrates a deficit).

Public comment and developer input Lori Tamura, representing the Home Builders Association, urged that the ordinance explicitly allow fee payment at certificate of occupancy (the city's prevailing practice for many developer fees) and asked staff to preserve or clarify language recognizing on-site amenities in multifamily projects. Tamura also asked staff to restore some recognition for flood-control basins that are designed to provide usable recreational space and called for consistent cross-references where the draft used differing caps (40% vs. 60%).

Staff and commissioners acknowledged timing concerns tied to project financing and told builders the commission would consider project-by-project requests for occupancy-based timing or other accommodations.

Action taken Commissioners voted to accept the staff discussion and to direct staff to complete a draft ordinance for presentation to City Council. The motion passed by voice vote; the record shows the motion was carried with verbal "ayes" during the meeting.

Next steps Staff will revise the draft ordinance to address the commission's and builders' comments, reconcile inconsistent credit caps, and return the ordinance to the commission with a recommended final version for referral to the City Council. Staff indicated a target to place the ordinance on the council agenda in early August but said the schedule could shift depending on council workload and additional edits requested by the commission.

Notes: The recording and staff packet included detailed page references to the draft ordinance; staff repeatedly pointed commissioners to the draft's highlighted sections (green and yellow versions) for line-by-line comparison. The commission's vote was procedural to advance the draft, not a final adoption of code changes.