S. Pasadena to Use Renewal Funds to Fight Freeway

Reluctant to squeeze the voters for another dollop of tax revenue, the City Council has elected instead to use Community Redevelopment Agency funds to challenge a state plan to complete the Long Beach Freeway by running an 8-lane freeway corridor through the middle of town.

The council, whose five members also constitute the Redevelopment Agency board, voted unanimously Wednesday to use redevelopment funds to pay San Francisco attorney Antonio Cosby-Rossman to represent the city in a possible challenge to the state Department of Transportation’s plan.

With Caltrans on a “fast track” to get federal approval for its plan, “it would be almost irresponsible of us not to explore” the use of redevelopment funds, said Councilman James Hodge, who chairs the Redevelopment Agency.

Allocating the funds for litigation is permissible under the state Health and Safety Code, provided that the subject of the litigation is related to redevelopment, City Atty. Charles Vose told the council.

That is clearly the case with the proposed freeway link, he said, since the Caltrans plan to connect the Long Beach Freeway with the Pasadena and Foothill freeways by extending it along Meridian Avenue could have “substantial negative impact on the downtown redevelopment area.”

25-Year Battle

With the city’s 25-year battle to stop the freeway apparently close to a conclusion, a residents group had suggested that the council seek to impose a 1% or 2% tax on residents to build a war chest for legal fees. The council had considered other alternatives as well, such as a utility tax or a parcel tax.

But South Pasadena taxpayers carry an especially heavy burden these days, council members acknowledged. Residents and businesses already pay a 4% monthly utility tax, and the city’s school system is facing budget deficits.

The council has already approved payments totaling $27,000 from general funds to hire the Sacramento-based lobbying firm of Ochoa & Sillas and to retain Cosby-Rossman for three months.

Two months ago, Caltrans presented federal and state agencies with a final environmental impact statement on its $425-million plan to complete the Long Beach Freeway with a 6.2-mile extension through El Sereno, downtown South Pasadena and Pasadena.

The state agency, under pressure from neighboring cities whose streets are flooded with traffic because of the uncompleted freeway, now expects approval from the Federal Highway Administration and the California Transportation Commission by March or April.

The city contends that the freeway route preferred by Caltrans would “take the guts right out of the city,” bisecting South Pasadena and displacing a significant portion of its 24,000 residents. Mayor James Woollacott said Wednesday that it would also generate considerable losses in property and sales taxes and state school aid.

According to state documents, the Caltrans route would require demolishing 1,363 residential units, including about 630 homes in South Pasadena. The loss to the city caused by removing taxable property from the tax rolls would be at least $560,000 a year, he said. The resulting displacement of school children who attend the city’s five public schools could mean the loss of between $2 million and $3 million a year, Woollacott added.

“The loss of sales tax because residents would no longer shop in our stores is more difficult to assess, but it’s something to be reckoned with,” Woollacott said.

But Woollacott emphasized that the city does not oppose completion of the Long Beach Freeway. “It’s important for people to know that South Pasadena is not trying to stop this freeway,” he said after the meeting. “For years, we’ve been trying to get it done, but we’re trying to save the city in the same bargain.”

The city is pressing for the adoption of a longer westerly route, which would skirt the city’s boundary with Los Angeles rather than cut through the center of town.

Woollacott said that he recently had been in discussions with Caltrans officials on the city’s proposal. “They’ve been more open to us than they have been in a long time,” he said.

Jeff Bingham, Caltrans environmental chief for Los Angeles and Ventura counties, said he could not confirm that talks had been going on. “I hear the same kind of rumors,” he said.

The use of redevelopment funds to pay legal fees, which city officials estimate could ultimately run to $200,000, solves a sticky fiscal problem for the council--getting voter approval for another tax.

New Utility Tax

Faced with cuts in such services as tree pruning and street sweeping, the council last spring appealed to voters for a 4% utility tax, which passed by a narrow margin. An earlier version of the tax was rejected last year, after outspoken fiscal conservatives complained that it was too open-ended.

Two months ago, South Pasadena teachers negotiated a 10% salary increase, putting further pressure on the city’s financially strapped school district. The district has eliminated about $750,000 worth of budgeted items to close a budget gap this year. But it faces an even larger shortfall next year, according to Superintendent Lou Joseph.

A 22-member residents panel is considering proposals for a parcel tax and a bond issue, both of which would require voter approval, to raise more school funds, Joseph said.