Developers, City in Funding Feud : Major Improvements in Golden Triangle Go Begging

Golden Triangle developers, fearful that the value of their investments may plummet unless planned traffic and other improvements in the congested area are implemented, claim city officials are sitting on $11 million in developer contributions that were collected long ago for just such basic services.

At issue are such improvements as widening roads, installing new highway interchanges, acquiring and building parks, and providing other facilities that affect the quality of life in the University City area.

But a city engineering official says the amount of money in the treasury is in accord with spending projections made two years ago. The city has already dispensed about $2 million for improvements and anticipates spending an additional $7 million on road and other projects in fiscal 1988.

Nevertheless, several scheduled projects, such as widening heavily traveled La Jolla Village Drive and building an interchange at Nobel Drive and Interstate 5, have been delayed for at least two years even though money is available for the improvements, city officials say. They attribute the delay to the transfer of design responsibility from Caltrans to the city.

Lack of ‘Assertiveness’

“I think there hasn’t been enough assertiveness on the part of certain staff (members) to push the projects on schedule,” said George Lattimer, chairman of the University Community Planning Group that works with city officials on University City development matters.

Lattimer, an executive with the Harry L. Summers property development firm, said the city is efficient enough when it comes to collecting the fees used to pay for the public facilities but has no system to oversee the timely awarding of contracts to build libraries, parks and interchanges.

After priorities are identified by community plans, Lattimer said, the projects are designed and contracts are awarded on a department-by-department basis. But because the city has no single entity to monitor the projects, the developers say, some of them are overlooked in departmental budgeting, and priorities slip in the preparation of the city’s annual capital improvement budget.

“The city is doing a good job collecting funds (from developers),” said Harry Mathis, vice chairman of the University Community Planning Group. “But the city has not organized itself well to dispense funds . . . and get things moving. What they need is to have a czar to expedite the engineering and commissioning of these funds.”

FBA Is the Issue

At issue is a relatively new method for funding improvements in developing communities. Normally, the roads, curbs, gas and electricity, water and sewage lines in a residential development are paid for by the project’s developer. But libraries, fire stations and major roadways, all of which serve several neighborhoods, increasingly are paid for through a new device called a facilities benefit assessment, or FBA.

A post-Proposition 13 device upheld as legal by the 4th District Court of Appeal, the assessments allow cities to raise and spend money without exceeding Proposition 13-mandated property tax constraints.

Specifically, under an FBA, the city’s Engineering Department evaluates what facilities will be needed to meet the additional requirements posed by projected developments before determining the cost and prorating it among the planned developers. A lien is then attached to each undeveloped property by the city, and the developer must pay his share of the assessment at the time his building permit is issued.

The FBA concept has been in use in San Diego since 1984 and today is being used in communities such as North City West, east Rancho Penasquitos, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo and Tierrasanta.

Bill Schempers, city deputy director of engineering and development, oversees the collection of fees from developers and the scheduling of the required facilities. But Schempers acknowledged that he does not know if the departments are actually planning scheduled facilities each year.

“I’m sure there are some cities with one department responsible for (such projects),” Schempers said. “But this is the way we are organized.”

Developers are concerned that unless streets are widened and better traffic controls are installed, gridlock will be the inevitable result. “It will reduce the value of retail and office (locations), and it will be a less desirable place to live,” said Lattimer.

Some urban planners have already predicted disaster for the area no matter what is done now. Nico Calavita, a professor of city planning at San Diego State University, said that by the time the area is completely developed in the year 2000, traffic congestion will be so bad that the only solution will be mass transportation.

“In my opinion, University City is going to have air pollution, traffic and noise problems three or four times higher than present,” Calavita said.

Golden Triangle building boom continues, Part IV, Page 2A.