Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Dedication Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues review of Quimby park‑fee ordinance to June meeting after developer and community requests
Summary
Staff introduced updates to the city's Quimby (park dedication) ordinance to clarify fee timing, definitions, credits and deferments; developers requested more time for review and the council continued the item to the first June meeting.
Alex Posada, Director of Recreation and Parks, introduced proposed revisions to Santa Maria's park dedication ordinance (the Quimby fee program) during the April 25 meeting, describing roughly a dozen substantive changes to timing, definitions, credit limits and administration.
Posada said staff proposes renaming the ordinance to the Quimby fee program (Quimby is state law governing parkland dedication and fees), clarifying that 50% of the fee would be due at permit issuance and the remaining 50% upon issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Staff recommended using the California Department of Finance population estimates (rather than decennial federal census numbers) to compute average household size for fee formulas and proposed allowing the Recreation and Parks Commission a role in adopting an acreage standard (three to five acres per 1,000 residents), noting the city has an approximate 50‑acre deficit within city limits.
Posada described other revisions: clarifying that park acreage must be accessible to the public (not remote or inaccessible open space), codifying that private recreation improvements behind locked gates are not eligible for fee credit, removing a narrow 1,500‑square‑foot credit loophole for minimal amenities, lowering maximum developer credit levels (staff proposed reducing a prior 60% maximum credit to a lower level to ensure fees collected suffice to build neighborhood parks) and clarifying deferment and reduction processes for affordable and senior housing projects.
Representatives of the development community asked for more time to review the proposed changes and to provide specific comments. Urban Planning Concepts (Pete Simmons) requested that fee timing be clarified to allow collection at occupancy rather than split at permit issuance, and asked for clear language on ADUs and SB 9 parcels. CoLab (Andy Caldwell) and other commenters urged council to consider the overall fee burden and impacts on housing affordability. Staff acknowledged a packet attachment (an appraisal) had been included in error and said fee figures would come back at a later fee‑setting hearing.
Following public comment and requests from developers for additional review time, the council voted to continue the Quimby ordinance item to the first meeting in June to allow staff to confer with developers and return with a refined draft and a summary of changes.
