County to review traffic-impact fees
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer
Fear is that 2005 fee is harming commercial-industrial development | ∞
SAN DIEGO -- Two years after approving the county's first traffic-impact fees over protests, supervisors said Wednesday that they want the fees changed because the fears that it would harm commercial and industrial development appear to be coming true.
Led by Supervisor Dianne Jacob, the county board voted 4-0 to direct Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard to return to the board in 60 days with proposed changes to the fees, including how to lower them for commercial and industrial development. Supervisor Pam Slater-Price was out of town and could not attend the meeting.
The fees were designed to ensure the county has enough money to build roads and infrastructure to support new development.
Supervisors reluctantly approved the fees by a 4-1 vote in April 2005, even though board members -- and dozens of protesting developers, traffic engineers and others -- said they feared the fees could hurt county development.
On Wednesday, Jacob said she has received complaints that those fears have been realized.
"Over the last couple of years, there have been ongoing frustrations, a lot of increasing concerns and questions raised by applicants, developers, citizens and local community groups," she said. "The most common concern is that the fees, in relation to commercial and industrial development, are too high, resulting in a heavy strain on development in the unincorporated communities in the county."
Board Chairman Ron Roberts, who cast the lone vote against the fees in 2005, said he was glad to see the board's decision would be re-evaluated.
"It was clear to me then that (the fee ordinance) was poorly drafted, it was extremely onerous in its implication, and it was going to stop development," he said. "And all of those things have largely been borne out."
The fees were badly needed two years ago, and it was unclear Wednesday how the board would change them while continuing to meet that need.
Supervisors approved the fees in 2005, saying they had no choice because a 2001 court case changed local governments' ability to excuse small development from having to do expensive traffic-impact studies under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The change meant that even homeowners seeking to split their lots and develop on their property had to pay up to $30,000 to do traffic impact studies. That created, in Jacob's words, "a de facto moratorium" on backcountry home building.
Faced with a logjam of 270 stalled projects in 2005, county supervisors chose to implement the traffic-impact fees -- charges of between $3,000 and $10,000 -- to "unclog" the moratorium.
"The Board of Supervisors were left with only two options," Jacob said Wednesday, and they were "adopt the transportation impact fee, or proceed with the de facto moratorium on new development."
While few complained about the residential fees, scads of developers and business owners complained bitterly about the more expensive commercial-industrial fees.
Building Industry Association officials said that the fees -- which ranged from $8.13 to $30 per square foot -- were nearly three times what cities charged businesses.
The fees were based on a county estimate that future backcountry development would have to pony up $909 million over the next 40 years to build roads.
At Wednesday's meeting, Ramona businessman Jim Salvatore said many Ramona businesses want to expand, but can't because the traffic-impact fees are too expensive.
Salvatore said a lot of Ramona residents did not want to go "down the hill" to stores in distant Escondido or Poway because gasoline prices were increasing, prompting stores there to want to expand. But the fees are more costly than potential profits from expansion.
"We're running into a big problem," he said. "To remodel, they're getting stuck with this transportation-impact fee and it's a really big burden. I don't think remodels should be part of the (fee)."
The county could decrease the fees by readjusting its $909 million estimate on what new roads are expected to cost. Officials from the Building Industry Association of San Diego County pushed for that approach in 2005, saying they believed the county needed only about $570 million. County planning officials rejected that suggestion.
At Wednesday's meeting, Building Industry Association spokesman Matt Adams suggested that the county could use money it gets from the state to offset the traffic-impact costs. Jacob asked that county managers investigate whether gasoline tax revenues could be used to reduce the fees.
-- Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
voting resident wrote on Nov 8, 2007 6:31 AM:The traffic is a nightmare. We have to much development and do not have the water or roads to support it. the last thing we need is more development without paying their fair impact costs. Raise the fees, increase efficient public transportation, and put a moritorium on new water meters until we can secure a reliable source. The Board of Supes is so out of touch with reality. vote accordingly.
hum wrote on Nov 8, 2007 7:49 AM:Are the fees too high because the county is overcharging or are the fees too high because it cost a lot to create new infrastructure? If it cost a lot, then it costs a lot. Someone has to pay and if it is the taxpayer then the taxpayer is subsidizing a very profitable industry.
Redevelopment = no county money wrote on Nov 8, 2007 7:52 AM:If the county's tax share wasn't reduced significantly by all of the Redevelopment Areas, that would have a huge impact on the ability of the county to keep our roads in repair. There are many cities in North County that have found the Redevelopment cash cow and are improving every redevelopment area they possibly can, even at the expense of the people, and the net result is that the city share of the property tax dolar goes up tremendously while the county gets the same amount reduced from their share. No wonder they do not have sufficient dollars. It is too bad that Dedevelopment has been abused to such an extent and that it hurts everyone.
NO COUNTY ENGINEER wrote on Nov 8, 2007 8:23 AM:I have a client who wanted to develop 3 acres in the County which included a drive-in eatery and 20,000 s.f. of commercial, no zone change needed. His county traffic impact fees were going to be $1.75M and he still had to widening the road and install a traffic signal on his dime(roughly $950K) Therefore it wasn't feasible to complete the project because of these fees.
To: No County Engineer wrote on Nov 8, 2007 9:35 AM:As an engineer with adequate knowledge, would you think that anyone with industrial buildings should fight to keep them, with the rising costs of new development of them. Add to that, if existing industrial is in a Redevelopment Area, is it all the more wise to protect it. Much appreciated. Too bad about the tremendous costs associated with your project.
DUH! wrote on Nov 8, 2007 9:43 AM:Once again politicians think they know all. Transnet tax, billions in borrowing by the state. How much money do they need? STOP spending on social programs and fix the infrastructure!!
Floyd wrote on Nov 8, 2007 10:36 AM:When you tax something, you get less of it. When you tax something heavily, you get none of it. Roads are a shared public resource to be paid by the county, not by individuals.
anotherview wrote on Nov 8, 2007 7:10 PM:The doomsday scenarios presented by special interests should not excuse these special interests from their paying for the infrastructure that their special interest money-making activity needs to conduct itself without crowding others. As well, these special interests should not transfer these infrastructure costs to others who may or may not benefit from the money-making activity of these special interests. After all, when special interests pay less than their fair share of costs to offset the impacts of their projects, then these special interests may earn more profit than otherwise possible. In effect, others subsidize theses special interests for little or no gain. Further, by this subsidy, these special interests sidestep the economic axiom of supply and demand, because these special interests may then price their services or goods lower, without the due cost of conducting business. An artificial demand occurs. In conformity with capitalism, a reasonable profit from business must arise only after allowing for all costs of doing business. When a capitalist puts his costs on others, his profits come at the expense of others who pay those costs. The county must say no to special interests hankering to escape their business costs from impacts attributable to their money-making activity.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement