New Way to Pay for Boulevard Plan Urged : Development: Planners agree the trip fees that help fund improvements unfairly burden newcomers and discourage vital growth.

Calling the long-term blueprint for Ventura Boulevard a “disincentive to business,” Los Angeles city planners on Thursday said a new way must be found to pay for the ambitious plan.

Exactly how remained up in the air. But planning commissioners, developers and homeowners agreed at a hearing that the way public improvements are funded under the boulevard’s growth plan does not work.

The Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, as it is formally known, now requires property owners and developers to pay their share of $222 million worth of improvements, such as street widenings, based on the number of new car trips created by their projects.

But these so-called trip fees--which range from $2,000 to $800,000 per property--have come under attack in recent months for unfairly placing financial burdens on newcomers and discouraging new development vital to the historic thoroughfare’s survival.

Commissioners agreed.

“The fee structure in here is just mind-boggling and it begs some very serious questions,” city Planning Commission Chairwoman Marna Schnabel said. “What about this works? Reading it, I can’t imagine this works.”

The remarks of Schnabel and other commissioners signal a major philosophical shift. During the hurly-burly growth of the 1980s, city officials were able to get extra fees from eager developers in exchange for permits.

But as the pool of new development dries up, the city is seeking ways to ease the burden on new developers, while also trying to protect the existing merchants and nearby residents.

Many people at the hearing agreed that if the planners and transportation experts find new ways to fund traffic improvements along Ventura Boulevard, such efforts might be duplicated in other areas--such as Warner Center and Central City West.

It was, however, uncertain Thursday what form new funding might take.

“What we want to do is step back, take a deep breath and look at whether there are better ways to fund infrastructure,” said Deputy Planning Director Melanie Fallon.

Fallon said she will arrange a meeting with city transportation officials in the next several months to determine what options are available to the city.

One idea suggested by Jeff Brain, chairman of the plan’s citizen review committee, was to impose a benefit assessment district that would spread the cost of improvements more evenly among the boulevard’s property owners--existing as well as new owners--and over a longer period of time.

Whatever the case, commissioners and city planning staff said Thursday that the plan has failed to generate funds as expected. Although the plan projected generating $12.9 million in trip fees by now, just under $315,000 has been collected, largely because of the slumping economy.

In addition, several dozen property owners are appealing fees assessed for construction between 1985 and 1991, when the plan was being hammered out. Of $12.5 million billed, roughly $1.2 million has been paid and about $8.4 million is under appeal to the City Council.

It was not clear what effect the commission’s action will have on pending appeals. And City Council offices contacted Thursday declined to comment until specific proposals are on the table.

Homeowner activist Gerald A. Silver told commissioners he supports creating a benefit assessment district, but cautioned against loosening other requirements of the plan, which is meant to ease traffic congestion and preserve existing neighborhoods.

“It may look like the plan is not fair and is not working,” he said. “But in the long run, it will work.”