COLLEGE DISTRICT TRUSTEES OK ASSESSMENT PLAN.

Byline: Mary Beth Alexander Daily News Staff Writer

Despite protests from hundreds of angry taxpayers, the Los Angeles Community College District board early today approved a plan to raise property tax bills $12 a year for campus improvements.

The decision to create the ``landscape and lighting assessment district'' came after more than six hours of public testimony, most of it from residents hotly opposed to a new levy.

The vote was 4-3, with members Lindsay Conner, Beth Garfield and Julia Wu opposed. Trustees Althea Baker, Kenneth Washington, David Lopez-Lee and Gloria Romero voted in favor of the assessment.

``I've been with the Community College District since 1969. I've been elected to the board for a time,'' Washington said. ``Today I'll have the opportunity to do the most for the community colleges than I've ever had in my life.''

Members of a group called the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations vowed to mount a recall drive against the trustees who voted in favor of the assessment.

``This is egregious - what you're doing. It flies in the face of property owners' rights,'' said Patricia Bell Hearst, president of the group, which claims 50 homeowner groups and 200,000 property owners citywide.

The board of trustees had called Wednesday's hearing at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College a final and legally required step in creating the assessment district.

Residents at the meeting were especially displeased with the district's decision to create the district without a vote of the people.

``This is taxation without representation,'' said Jean Miller, a Los Angeles woman opposed to the tax.

But board President Lopez-Lee defended the process, saying the district gave the affected property owners a chance to block creation of the district by mailing a written protest.

``All the property owners of the college district have been voting on this assessment district in the past three weeks,'' he said.

Owners of at least half the 1.1 million parcels being taxed - around 400,000 people - would have had to mail letters of protest in order to block the assessment.

The district had received about 23,000 letters from property owners protesting the plan by the Wednesday deadline.

About 150 people spoke during the meeting, about one-third in favor of the assessment.

George Eaeler, of Palos Verdes, asked members of the audience not to begrudge the district money for what he sees as needed improvements.

``It is good for the community, and it is good for the colleges,'' he said.

Patricia Correa said her family has lived near Los Angeles Southwest College for 30 years and noted that the campus lacks modern facilities that other community colleges enjoy.

``I have been a taxpayer, and I have been an homeowner, and we still do not have a complete campus,'' she said.

However, opponents questioned some of the district's planned expenditures, such as a proposed $6.87 million equestrian complex at Los Angeles Pierce College.

``These are things that many large universities don't have,'' said Ruth Sofaer, of Venice. ``These are truly outrageous demands.''

Under the plan, the district will levy a $12 assessment on single-family parcels, $9.36 per unit for apartments and condos, and $66 per acre for improved commercial property.

The assessment is expected to raise $235 million over 30 years for outdoor improvements and new recreational facilities for each of the district's nine campuses.

Of the proceeds, about $3.5 million annually will cover maintenance for landscaping and lighting, while the rest will pay off the 30-year debt on bonds that will be sold to finance the campus improvements.

Critics have called the assessment district an end run around Proposition 13, which requires a two-thirds voter approval for any new property tax. But because the assessment isn't technically a property tax, no public vote is required to enact it into law.

Trustees backing the measure maintain that the process has been fair and democratic, and followed the proper guidelines for forming the assessment district under the Lighting and Landscape Act, a state law approved in 1972.

Property owners were notified by mail last month about the proposed assessment, and instructed in the document how to file written protests. A special meeting was held in the San Fernando Valley, drawing several hundred concerned and angry opponents.

``My property taxes are going higher, and my property values are going lower,'' said Alejandro Salazar of Wilmington. ``My house didn't come with a money tree in the back.''

Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs called the assessment a sham and - to the cheers of the crowd - told the trustees, ``For shame.''

The City Council is weighing an assessment district for parks that would add about $20 a year to property tax bills for single-family homes. If approved, the district would generate $750 million.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: Borek Volarik of Northridge interrupts trustee David Lopez-Lee during the assessment hearing Wednesday.

David Sprague/Daily News