Review Board's Goal Is to Preserve Quality of Life : Claims that panel members seek to undo the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan and its provisions controlling building density are unfounded.

By JEFF BRAIN

Oct. 17, 1993 12 AM PT

In 1991, a 20-year plan for Ventura Boulevard known as the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan was adopted with two primary goals: controlling growth through tighter land-use restrictions and raising revenue for improvements.

The plan established a review board composed of 13 residents and business people who live and work along the boulevard. The board is responsible for ensuring that the plan is implemented.

The board has been publicly accused by Gerald Silver of Homeowners of Encino of seeking to undo the plan. He has warned of Manhattan-style canyons lining the street.

However, not once at our meetings has any member proposed modifying any of the restrictions controlling the density of new development. We have spent most of our time working to implement the envisioned improvements.

But during this process, serious questions have arisen about the plan’s budget, including a $110-million deficit and potential flaws in the funding structure that could jeopardize the plan’s success. Board members--both residents and business people--therefore initiated a review of these issues. The need for this review was confirmed by the Planning Commission on Thursday when it instructed city departments to re-examine the budget and trip fee structure.

The budget calls for spending $222 million on capital improvements for the boulevard (see box). The largest item is $152 million to widen 30 key intersections to increase automobile capacity.

This is too costly, considering that funds to cover that program are expected to come from fees assessed against the boulevard’s businesses and property owners. Widening the Ventura Freeway from one end of the Valley to the other cost only $40 million. The city’s entire annual budget for street improvements is only $20 million.

Our discovery of a miscalculation in the plan, combined with our proposal to shorten the length of the street widened at each intersection for turn lanes from 370 feet to a more reasonable 185, would reduce the cost to $38 million. This makes it more palatable, but other concerns remain.

Buildings block 58% of the planned intersection widenings. After great expense, there would be a hodgepodge of widening that might provide no meaningful benefit. Wider streets also mean narrower sidewalks, leaving no room for trees or other street improvements--an important part of the plans’ pedestrian-friendly vision.

As traffic capacity increases, it is filled like a vacuum because drivers seek the path of least congestion. Boulevard communities do not want more regional traffic.

The review board has recommended a moratorium on widening, to ensure that before this costly program begins, all questions about its cost, feasibility and benefits are answered and less expensive “trip reduction” alternatives considered.

The main source of funding is trip fees assessed against property owners and developers when a change of use increases car traffic.

The plan anticipated 29,319 new trips over the next 20 years, raising $103 million in fees. Even then, the plan’s budget will have a deficit of $110 million.

There is compelling evidence that this deficit will be much higher. The budget assumes 1,465 new trips per year, which would raise about $5.1 million a year. Yet only 679 new trips per year were being generated between 1985 and 1991, when development was viewed as unrestrained. Something is wrong when a plan designed to reduce growth is based on a budget requiring the rate of growth to be double its prior level and still the budget has a $110-million deficit.

In reality, only 425 new trips a year are expected to occur, generating $1.5 million a year--only $30 million over 20 years. The deficit will soar to $184 million and none of the improvements will be completed.

Since the plan was enacted, only 88 new trips have been generated, raising only $313,000. This was not even enough to cover the staff and administration costs.

Some people suggest that the deficit be made up by adding an assessment district to trip fees. But there is no bottomless well of money, and property owners must vote on a district. It is unrealistic to think they would approve one under the current circumstances.

Therefore the budget must be reduced and alternate funding sources considered. The actions should include lobbying for outside funds and possibly shifting the emphasis to an assessment district and away from trip fees, not on top of them.

Some oppose the budget review. They see the high fees and high expenditures as a deterrent to business on the boulevard. Nowhere in the plan is this stated as a purpose of the fees or a goal of the plan.

For the board not to review these issues once the questions were raised would have been negligent. Our review and proposals deal only with the plan’s budget and its improvement program and will not affect the density restrictions.

The destinies of everyone living and working along the boulevard are linked. As go commercial property values and rents, so go adjacent residential values. If the specific plan is properly implemented, one will not be at the expense of the other.

The review board members are dedicated to protecting the quality of life for those who live along the boulevard while ensuring that, whether or not another square foot of space is ever built there, it remains vibrant and properly functions as the Valley’s premier commercial corridor.

Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan Budget

Eliminating the deficit will require reduced expenses or additional fees imposed by the City Council or both.

REVENUE

Trip fees: $103,402,000

Propositions A and C: 8,100,000

Total: $111,502,000

COSTS

Intersection flaring: $152,000,000

Parking improvements: 19,700,000

Transit and shuttles: 16,200,000

Streetscape renovation: 17,360,000

Utility undergrounding: 6,700,000