For Sherman Oaks Group, Redevelopment Means Rebuilding

The earthquake struck Sherman Oaks with a vengeance, leaving lingering effects. Blocks of quake-damaged condos and apartment buildings were abandoned, creating “ghost towns” plagued with arson fires, looting and vermin infestation. One way to attract needed funds for rebuilding is to create a redevelopment zone. The money would come from the property tax increment, or the increase in property taxes expected to result from revitalizing the area. Normally when a redevelopment area is created, a citizens advisory committee with special powers is formed that makes recommendations to the city Community Redevelopment Agency about the nature and priority of the activities in the project area. Richard A. Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn., spoke with special correspondent Kay Hwangbo about the idea.

*

Question: What do you think of the Community Redevelopment Agency’s proposal to create a redevelopment area in Sherman Oaks?

Answer: I think the idea is good. The question is, can it be implemented in a manner that best serves the needs of the community, rather than the needs of the CRA.

The CRA’s goal is to increase the tax base. Generally, that means building large commercial developments. What we need in Sherman Oaks is not large commercial development. We need to get rid of the “ghost towns” that exist in our community. We need a way to help owners of apartment buildings, of condominiums, to be able to obtain financing to rebuild their buildings. This will generate the population base to help the businesses on Ventura Boulevard survive.

Q: What is your main concern about the idea?

A: The main concern that we have is to make sure that the decisions as to how the CRA monies are to be used should be made by a community-based committee established by the City Council, and not made by the CRA commissioners in downtown Los Angeles. Their goals are generally substantially different from our goals.

Q: The CRA just last week came out with a draft plan for redeveloping Sherman Oaks. What do you think of it?

A: Plans that are being reviewed by the various communities are too general. They don’t say anything. They give the CRA total power without giving the community any insight into how the CRA intends to use this money. They’re very generic plans that really don’t relate to Sherman Oaks or Northridge or Reseda. What we’re hoping is that, in the next 30 to 60 days of review by the public, these plans will be made very specific as to each community, so that each community knows how the money is going to be used.

The plan provides for the establishment of a community advisory committee appointed by the councilman. It’s a good idea, but it doesn’t go far enough. This committee will have no power except to indicate what it wants. The CRA can completely disregard those goals and the City Council can completely disregard those goals. The CRA is interested in one thing, which is to build large commercial developments in order to increase the amount of tax increment funding for the CRA. That’s not our goal. Our goal is not to make the CRA rich, our goal is to rebuild the residential areas of Sherman Oaks.

Q: What kind of community input must the CRA get before deciding on a plan for the redevelopment area?

A: Generally, there is a lot of public input involving the CRA’s projects. However, the general rules do not apply to a natural disaster redevelopment area. In those cases, there is very little community input, there’s very little evaluation of the project because of the so-called emergency nature of the project. That is the problem. The redevelopment area is proposed to be put together in about a 60-day period. For most communities, before a project area is established and a plan is established, it is a two-year process.

What we want is the community to have a say in the next 20 to 30 years that this CRA project will be around. And the way to do that is to have a citizens advisory committee established, and that citizens advisory committee would have veto power over projects.

Q: Why do you think the committee should have veto power?

A: Without veto power, there is no way that we can make sure that the CRA does not use that money to build large commercial developments like they’ve done in Hollywood and North Hollywood and Bunker Hill. The CRA, in general, has not used the tax increment money for financing residential rebuilding. They’ve used it to help blighted areas to attract commercial development.

Also, we have a very unique situation in Sherman Oaks. Starting on Dec. 5, Councilman Yaroslavsky will become a member of the (Los Angeles County) Board of Supervisors and we will not have a councilperson until July of 1995. We are concerned that during that time period, various projects will be implemented and we will have no council member to speak on our behalf. We’re not asking that this committee have the power to implement its own projects. We’re saying the citizens advisory committee should have the power only to say no to projects that are inappropriate,especially during the seven-month period when we have no council member.

Q: I understand that Councilman Yaroslavsky is opposed to the advisory committee having veto power. Where does that leave you?

A: We’re trying to work with the councilman to come up with a solution to the problem. One thing we’re exploring is to prepare a plan that is so tight it doesn’t give the CRA the ability to use the funds for any activity the CRA wants to use it for. In other words, put the goals and objectives and priorities for the tax increment money right in the plan. It’s never been done that way, but that may be a way of protecting the community and making sure that we get the proper use of the funds.

Q: Do you feel that the redevelopment funds should be used for more than rebuilding earthquake damage, that it should be used to improve Sherman Oaks?

A: Yes, the funding should be used for many purposes. We must rebuild and we must attract. We must rebuild the residential area and we must attract more capital, more redevelopment of the existing structures. We don’t want high-rise commercial developments on the boulevard. We want to attract private developers to come in, take one- and two-story retail businesses, revitalize them and operate very profitable establishments there. The CRA funding is a method to get city improvements to the area.

Q: I understand that some residents are concerned about how Sherman Oaks would be perceived if it were to be declared a redevelopment area.

A: I think that some people believe that redevelopment areas are only for blighted areas. We would prefer to to call it a community recovery area rather than a redevelopment area because Sherman Oaks is not blighted like other areas of the city that need redevelopment. It’s not (like) where they can’t attract people to locate businesses or build buildings. The attraction is there, it’s just there is no financing.

What we need to do is use some of that money right at the beginning to get rid of some of the buildings that are decaying. No. 2, we have to spruce it up. Right now, it’s impossible to get city funds to spruce up an area. But redevelopment is a method to obtain funds for that purpose. I’ve said all along, since the 18th of January, that the earthquake should leave Sherman Oaks in a much better position than it was the day before the earthquake.

Q: Some people have also said they believe the CRA should not act as a planning body in the project area.

A: There is a concern that the CRA will indicate what can be built and what cannot be built in Sherman Oaks. They can act as a mini-dictator, saying that if you’re in the redevelopment area, all plans must be approved by them, in addition to the city. The CRA is not a planning body. They do not have the expertise to develop projects for an area, especially for an area that is not blighted. We don’t need another layer of government.

We want to encourage development and rebuilding, and adding another layer of government makes that more difficult. The role of the CRA should be in this situation strictly for financing. Financing rebuilding, financing infrastructure improvements, period. Planning should be done by the city planning commission and ultimately by the City Council.

Q: If a tightly worded plan is developed, what are the chances that it could be modified at a later date by the CRA?

A: It cannot be modified by the CRA. It can be modified by the City Council. So that is a risk that we would have to take in order to get the benefits of a redevelopment project. But I would rather trust the City Council than put my full faith and confidence in the CRA.

Q: What’s the next step?

A: The next step for both Sherman Oaks and other areas of the Valley that have redevelopment areas under discussion is for the community to attend the upcoming community meetings, to get involved in the process, and indicate to the city councilman what type of improvements should be made and what type of CRA plan should be prepared. Because the way the current plan is prepared, there is no protection, it’s strictly left to the whim and desire of the CRA in downtown Los Angeles.