County Files 2 Suits Over Development in Torrance : Redevelopment: The lawsuits allege that the city improperly extended the length and scope of its Industrial Redevelopment Project. The county wants a bigger share of the property taxes gained from the project.

Los Angeles County officials have filed a pair of lawsuits against the city of Torrance in an attempt to recoup a greater share of property taxes from the city’s prospering Industrial Redevelopment Project, which includes the just-completed headquarters of North American Honda Motor Co.

The two lawsuits--the most recent of which was served on the city last week--allege that Torrance improperly extended the length and scope of the redevelopment project without approval from county officials and without required environmental review.

Both lawsuits ask for an invalidation of Torrance’s efforts to extend the redevelopment plan.

County officials said they will drop the lawsuits and agree to the extension of the redevelopment project if the county gets more of the property tax revenue generated by the explosion of offices and research centers in the once-scruffy district.

The dispute is typical of the increasing friction between the county and cities with redevelopment projects, officials on both sides agreed.

Under redevelopment, cities receive a larger share of property taxes from the project area in order to buy and clear blighted properties, pave streets, install storm drains and make other improvements. The projects can run 15 to 50 years. But county officials are anxious for the projects to be completed so they can again receive their full property tax share.

As budgets have constricted, fights over the tax payments have increased.

In 1983, the county agreed to receive an average of 28% of the property taxes from the 292-acre Torrance Industrial Redevelopment Project through 2013. The county typically receives 57% of property tax revenues.

Torrance officials announced last July that the city had already spent the $90 million that was to be the maximum expended for the 30-year project. They said the project area--roughly along Western Avenue, as far north as Del Amo Boulevard and south to near Sepulveda Boulevard--has proved more expensive to improve than planned for several reasons: Soil is heavily contaminated with petroleum and other toxins, land prices have tripled and the cost of relocating small businesses exceeded projections.

Conflict with the county came to a head when the city moved last summer to extend the project for 20 years and to spend another $90 million on improvements.

County officials objected to preserving the city’s tax advantage for 20 more years. They say the county loses more than $200 million in taxes a year to cities with redevelopment projects.

“The impact on the county is just growing,” said Delta Uyenoyama, a management analyst for the county. “Projects that should have ended are just perpetuated.”

But city officials contend that the continuation of improvements will benefit both the city and county. Property values and taxes will increase only with continued government assistance, they argue.

“It’s a matter of grabbing for 25 cents today,” Torrance Councilman Bill Applegate said, “but if they would wait, they would get a dollar down the road.”

Torrance Finance Director Mary Giordano said the city has offered to return the county to its standard share of taxes in 2013, as originally planned, as long as the county agrees to extend the project for 20 years and double the $90-million spending ceiling.

County officials declined to comment on that proposal.

In order to continue the improvement of its east side, which largely involves replacing worn industrial plants with offices and research centers, the Torrance Redevelopment Agency in late October amended its redevelopment plan by extending the time and spending ceilings.

One county lawsuit objects to that amendment on the grounds that the city agreed in 1983 not to extend its tax advantage without county approval. “They did it unilaterally,” said Deputy County Counsel Manuel Valenzuela, who filed the complaint.

“We did everything we could to sit down at the table and come up with some sort of agreement,” countered Torrance City Atty. Kenneth L. Nelson. “But nothing that we proposed was acceptable to them, and there were no counterproposals.”

The other suit focuses on Torrance’s alleged violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The city’s original environmental impact report for the redevelopment project did not mention the existence of toxins in the soil, and a supplementary report should have been completed to assess the extent of contamination, Valenzuela said.

Nelson said the amendment to the redevelopment involved only financial considerations.