Owners Fight Assessments for Face Lift on Boulevard : Development: Dozens of merchants on the thoroughfare appeal the fees, calling them unfair and excessive.

Challenging a program intended to benefit them, dozens of Ventura Boulevard property owners appealed assessments Thursday designed to fund a $220-million face lift for their historic thoroughfare.

Forty-two merchants, each of whom had promised to pay for the improvements in exchange for building permits, filed appeals of fees assessed under the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan, the 20-year master plan designed to control growth, ease traffic and enhance the San Fernando Valley’s main street.

Of the $15 million in fees levied so far on 150 businesses, the appeals represented at least $4 million--an amount that some observers say poses a significant challenge to the entire improvement program.

Many business owners argued that the fees, which range roughly from $2,000 to $800,000 per property, are excessive and unfair.

“It is just unconscionable,” said Susan Comden, who in 1991 was billed $1.2 million for her retail center and bank at 18711-51 Ventura Blvd. in Tarzana. “Especially during these tough economic times.”

Comden said she negotiated the bill down to $298,000 in February, but has since received a bill for $475,000. She appealed Thursday.

“I just can’t believe the city would do this,” she said. “I can’t believe it.”

Others who appealed said they would never have built if they had known how high the fees would ultimately be.

“It’s not that I object to improving Ventura Boulevard, but it has to reasonable,” said Mel Kohl, who appealed a $204,000 bill on his 20,000-square-foot property at 14242 Ventura Blvd. “But we had to sign an open-ended covenant with the city, and we were led to believe the bill would be between $5,000 and $8,000.”

The impact of the appeals filed Thursday is uncertain, according to Vivian Rescalvo, planning deputy for Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky.

“It may have a significant effect; that’s a lot of money,” she said. “I’d just have to look at the individual cases. They’re all different. That’s the reason for the appeal.”

City transportation officials were not available for comment. But Allyn Rifkin, principal transportation engineer for the Department of Transportation, has said he is confident that a new four-year payment plan, also approved by the council in April, will streamline the process and result in a higher collection rate.

The Los Angeles City Council set July 1 as the appeal deadline for merchants who had obtained building permits while the Ventura Boulevard plan was being drafted, between 1985 and 1991.

Fees on projects since the plan was passed in 1991 must be paid before a building is approved. Appeals, which cost $1,000, must be made within 15 days after receipt of a bill.

The appeals come at a time when planning officials are questioning the feasibility of funding the $222-million plan through so-called trip fees, which are levied against property owners based on the number of automobile trips their businesses generate on the boulevard during the peak travel hours of 3 to 7 p.m.

Trip fee assessments represent the bulk of the funds generated by merchants, and also represent the vast majority of the appeals filed Thursday.

Of the nearly $15 million in bills initially sent to about 150 merchants in 1991, only about $1.2 million has been paid. In the last two years, the plan theoretically should have generated an additional $13 million in the fees, but only $200,000 has been collected, an amount that does not cover the staff or administrative costs of the plan.

“You can see this budget doesn’t work,” said Jeff Brain, who heads up the budget and finance subcommittee of the Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan Review Board, a 13-member citizens advisory panel charged with overseeing implementation of the plan. “It’s really time to take another look at it and figure out what we can do.”

The panel already challenged the need for some of the traffic improvements called for under the plan. On Thursday, the group called for a moratorium on any widening projects along Ventura Boulevard until their concerns are addressed.

Representing 12 clients who filed appeals seeking a combined $3.7 million in relief was attorney Fred Gaines.

Among other things, Gaines said the fee assessment system unfairly charges developers for traffic that existed before they built. Because the pre-development use of property was not always correctly recorded, transportation officials failed to fairly predict the new traffic generated by the construction, Gaines claimed.

“DOT told us if they didn’t know what a prior use was, they put ‘vacant,’ ” Gaines said. “That’s ludicrous.”

In several cases, Gaines said his clients were treated unfairly because rules were changed after development planning had begun.

“You built your building, leased it out, and figured your finances under one set of rules--then they change the rules,” Gaines said.

After being reviewed by officials from the departments of transportation and planning, the appeals will be forwarded to the planning and land use committee of the City Council, before being turned over to the full council for vote.