The Dec. 3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors meeting was one for the transportation acronym crowd. Department of Transportation Director Rafael Martinez recommended the board consider a resolution adopting the department’s updated Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study which, he explained, “completes the 2024 major update to the Traffic Impact Fee Program.” 

Martinez further pointed out that the proposed resolution “is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.” Thus, the resolution may be adopted under the authority of board Chair Wendy Thomas’ signature. 

Martinez explained, while “it is very complex, we wanted to bring you a program that is both adequate and fair.” DOT staff have been developing the TIF update study, as required by the county’s five-year plan, for a year and a half.

The TIF system has been in place for years and is based on eight different fee zones. Zones have generally been identified with respect to the known or estimated levels of current and future housing and commercial development. 

District 2 Supervisor George Turnboo and District 4 Supervisor Lori Parlin expressed concerns the eight fee zones may be more unwieldy than necessary and suggested the board and staff “analyze and consider combining zones in the next program update.” 

Several speakers representing local and area homebuilders and developers, officially described as “stakeholders,” challenged adoption of the resolution on the grounds that their members had too little time to review it. Some complained they received copies of the proposed nexus study update only “13 days ago.” Some also charged DOT with “bias and a lack of transparency” in preparation of the update documents.

As proposed, board approval could result in fees of up to $30,000 in added cost of a building permit for each future housing unit. At minimum, stakeholders urged the county to “redo or at least delay” adoption of the TIF update. 

“It’s not fair to rush into this.” said George Carpenter with Winn Communities. “Staff wants to do this; but if it was done right the first time, it wouldn’t have to be delayed or redone.” 

Local developer Leonard Grado reminded, “We’re stakeholders … and housing or lack of housing is important to growth.” Grado concluded that a “delay (of board action) is necessary.” 

A woman calling in to the meeting opposed what she called DOT’s proposed “scare tactics,” arguing 13 days is not enough time for the public or developers to review and respond. 

County Auditor-Controller Joe Harn suggested the board appoint a committee to deal with the issue noting that the study’s update should include expertise from Economic Development staff. 

Despite the opposition expressed, Supervisors Parlin and Turnboo pointed out that after more than a year “all assumptions have been clear, transparency has been complete and this update is due.” 

“Our roads are terrible, infrastructure is very expensive. And who’s gonna pay for this?” Turnboo demanded before offering a motion to accept DOT’s recommendation. The Board voted 3-1 to adopt the motion. District 5 Supervisor Brooke Lane opposed. The Board of Supervisors now consists of four members. District 1 is currently vacant due to the recent and sudden passing of Supervisor John Hidahl.