Council
Files Away Fee Controversy |
By Jorge Casuso
November 12 – There would never have been close
to $45 million in developer fees that might have gone uncollected
by the City, and if there had been, there’s nothing that can
be done about it now, the City Council decided Tuesday.
Thus ended the controversy over alleged fees to fight traffic over the past
16 years that supporters of a failed ballot measure to cap development dredged
up shortly before last week’s elections.
After debating the issue, the council voted unanimously to receive and file
a report from the City Attorney that indicates the City never moved forward
with a plan to charge developers traffic mitigation fees outlined in a 1991
ordinance.
“You never set a fee,” Moutrie told the council. “You can’t
collect. . . I don’t believe there’s a way” to retroactively
collect it.”
While the fee was last mentioned in a December 12, 1996 memorandum from consultants,
some council members said it is imperative that the City follow through on similar
fees currently being discussed as part of the update to the Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE).
“This illustrates that good intentions don’t necessarily mean action,”
said Council member Kevin McKeown, who along with Bobby Shriver
backed Prop T, the failed initiative that would have capped most
commercial development in the city.
Nearly 20 years ago, McKeown said, “the process to set fees was begun.
A nexus study was done and paid for.
“The planning Commission generated a list of projects. The nexus study
came back, and nothing happened.”
Council member Ken Genser argued that the $45 million was a wildly exaggerated
amount that included properties that would not have been covered by the contemplated
fee.
He also noted that the amount of the fee was based on traffic mitigation fees
charged for developments in Downtown San Francisco and that Santa
Monica never set an amount.
“There’s lots of assumptions here,” Genser said. “We
can spend a lot of time debating these numbers.
“People are very concerned about traffic, and they expect the City to
de meaningful things to improve traffic,” Genser said.
Council members noted that the Santa Monica’s worsening traffic problem
was the impetus for Prop T -- which would have capped most commercial development
at 75,000 square feet annually for 15 years – and is a key component of
the LUCE.
“The real opportunity is now,” said Council member Richard Bloom.
“We’ve been working on the LUCE for the last four years.
“Fees are part of it,” Bloom said. “We’re on top of
it. I don’t know how anyone can doubt” the City will act this time
around.
The plan the council is considering as part of the LUCE would charge developers
mitigation fees to bankroll special districts to manage traffic with the goal
of creating “no new net car trips.”
The plan would allow taller developments with affordable housing near public
transit nodes such as future light rail stations and encourage walking by providing
neighborhood-serving uses in strategic locations.
McKeown said he hopes the council will learn from the past.
“We’ve learned something,” McKeown said. “This does
show us the importance of the collection of fees in mitigating what development
does to our community.”
|
