U.S. Supreme Court hands El Dorado County homeowner a small win

EL DORADO COUNTY, Calif. - When George Sheetz wanted to add another home to his property for his grandchildren, little did he know his complaint of the $23,420 traffic impact fee on the project would end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sheetz wanted to add a 1,800-square-foot manufactured home on his property south of US50 and Camino on Fort Jim Road.

The fee is requested on El Dorado County projects to address an increase in demand on services by new development, such as roads. The fee amount was not based on the costs of traffic impacts specifically attributable to Sheetz’s particular project, but rather was assessed according to a rate schedule that took into account the type of development and its location within the County.

Sheetz paid the fee under protest and obtained the permit.

He later sought relief in state court, claiming that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. Based on previous court rulings, Sheetz said the County should make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project.

The trial court rejected Sheetz’s claim and the California Court of Appeal affirmed because the traffic impact fee was imposed by legislation, and, according to the court, prior court law only applies to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators. That is incorrect, said Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the court's ruling on April 12. She said the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions.

Sheetz went to Washington, DC to have his case heard before the nine justices in January, and their unanimous ruling this week vacates the California Court of Appeal decision and sends it back to the state to reconsider.

The county could settle before the state hears it again.

El Dorado County released a statement to us that said, "The County is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision, which answers only a narrow question on which the parties already agreed. It explicitly leaves open the County's other strong defenses and casts no doubt on whether local governments can continue to impose reasonable permitting conditions (including impact fees) on new development under their traditional land-use authority, as the County has done here."