Torrance Amends Redevelopment Plan Despite County’s Objections

Despite objections from Los Angeles County, Torrance officials decided Tuesday to double the spending limit for the city’s industrial redevelopment project from $90 million to $180 million and to extend the project timetable 20 years, to the year 2033.

A deputy county counsel said Wednesday the county may mount a legal challenge to the city’s actions. In response, Torrance City Manager LeRoy Jackson said the city will continue to negotiate with the county to reach a compromise in the dispute.

“We’re not out to cause problems with the county,” Jackson said.

When the Torrance project was first conceived in 1983, the county agreed to limit its share of property taxes from the project area to 20% through the year 2013. The county receives 57% from most areas not covered by a redevelopment plan.

County officials have objected to the Torrance change because it would limit the county’s share of tax revenues from the area for an additional 20 years. They want to return to the 57% rate now.

The 1983 Torrance industrial redevelopment plan is aimed at improving 292 acres on the city’s west side by clearing out old buildings to make room for new offices and industries.

But the city underestimated the cost of the project, which officials blame on a variety of factors, including increased land values and costly cleanup of pollution left by departed industries.

So city officials decided to raise the spending limit and add 20 more years to the project. That would allow time to remove some toxic waste, repave streets and install utility lines, officials said.

The Torrance City Council and the city Redevelopment Agency adopted the amended plan Tuesday night. The council approved the plan in the form of an ordinance on a 5-0 vote with Councilmen Dan Walker and George Nakano abstaining. Earlier, the council members, sitting as the Redevelopment Agency, had approved the plan 5 to 0.

Los Angeles County officials have said that if the plan is changed, the county should receive 57% of the property taxes generated by the project.

City and county representatives are still negotiating the tax-sharing arrangement, said Diane Shamhart, assistant division chief in the Los Angeles County chief administrative office.

Asked if the county is holding firm on its 57% request, Shamhart said: “It’s what we would like to see, but it’s all a matter of negotiations.”

The county has maintained that the city should conduct an environmental review of the project before changing it.

Although the city Environmental Board concluded a review is not needed, the county appealed that decision Oct. 3 in a letter that calls the original 1983 environmental review “stale.” On Tuesday, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency rejected that appeal.

Manuel A. Valenzuela, deputy county counsel, said Wednesday that the county still believes a review is needed. The county has 30 days to file papers in Superior Court, asking the city to conduct a review, he said.

In addition, the county has 60 days to contest the city’s adoption of the amended redevelopment plan, he said.