The developers have appealed the fees stating that the project will not support the fees nor provide the traffic the report indicates. The supervisors, however, approved these fee formulas in the Plan recently; and now the dilemma is -what should developers have to pay- how much is enough? Is 6 million dollars too much? Will these types of fees drive smaller local developers out of the county, leaving only the large developers in the market for Amador County projects? Charles Field Executive Director of the Amador County Transportation Commission approached the Supervisors stating that he understood that this workshop is based on the fact the Supervisors will be hearing an appeal in the near future on the Pine Grove project.. Field explained that traffic is graded by a letter system, A-E being assigned to grade levels of traffic services. The county is mainly E and F during peak hours currently. Generally, the county should strive for a C grading. The Regional Traffic Plan takes into consideration land use decisions and plans and anticipated traffic flows and the changes that will impact roadways grades.

If a development’s anticipated traffic generation rates will down grade a roadway or intersection then the developer is charged with the road improvement dollar amounts necessary to bring the intersection back up to an acceptable level of service. A dollar amount was then established for how much road improvements would cost to have a uniform C through out the county and the formulas to assess fees for development were then established. After many public hearings, over nearly 3 years worth, the policies were adopted in April of 2006 by the Supervisors. All developers will pay the fees “It doesn’t matter” stated Sean Rabe, ACTC- the amount of those fees is determined by if the project is consistent with the General Plan. If consistent the developer pays level one fees. If the project is asking for a legislative act of the supervisors to increase their development entitlement, in other words build out more than the general plan allows, tier two fees are charged. The more changes to the General Plan the more fees. These are considered “Fair Share” improvement fees.

In the case of the Pine Grove development the information was interpreted regarding how this development would impact the grading of the roadways through out the county. The price tag for level C; nearly 6 million dollars. Supervisor Richard Forster stated that it is difficult for him to establish percentages of impacts on a particular roadway, for example the Pine Grove project, according to the RTP will increase traffic on Ridge Rd 27 percent. Forster stated that given the number of projects, now and in the future, it is difficult to determine if this is accurate. He asked about reimbursement should a developer improve a roadway and therefore those developers that follow are not required to upgrade- because it’s already done. He was told that reimbursement is possible if the developer asks- however there is no mechanism in place to provide for the reimbursement. Forester stated that admittedly these types of fees will decrease developers willing to develop. Brian Oneto asked, specifically pertaining to the Pine Grove project, does the traffic study show where the traffic is coming from for the businesses? He was told it depends on the type of businesses that are put in the development- which he felt are mainly local. The bottom line is the traffic study on the Pine Grove project flawed? Larry Peterson stated that the RTP studies are not flawed.

Charles Field stated that the traffic flows from the Pine Grove project are already adjusted for Supervisor Oneto’s concerns. In general the workshop explained why the fees are in place and how the fees were determined. Next Tuesday morning the Supervisors will once again address the specifics of the Pine Grove project.