Valley Interview : Garcia Sees Limited Valley Role for His Unpopular CRA

For years, Dan Garcia has straddled the worlds of private enterprise and public service while working as a lawyer and serving on the city’s Planning Commission, Airport Commission and Police Commission.

But perhaps his greatest challenge is serving as board chairman of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, a post he took in November.

The agency--which is empowered to condemn private property and redirect property taxes to pay for public improvements--has faced opposition from residents of North Hollywood, Sherman Oaks and Studio City over plans to assist with earthquake repairs.

CRA opponents say redevelopment is a waste of taxpayers’ money that benefits private developers and leaves property owners vulnerable to condemnation by the city. Supporters say the eminent domain powers held by redevelopment agencies such as the CRA provide a useful public tool for rebuilding neighborhoods.

In an interview from his office at Warner Bros., where he works as vice president of real estate and public affairs, Garcia talked about the spirit of redevelopment and acknowledged the CRA’s image problem. He also discussed his studio’s controversial plans for expansion in Burbank.

Question: What does the CRA need to do to improve community relations?

Answer: Trying to make sure you get consistent community input is very important. Secondly, the agency has to make sure people understand that, particularly in the Valley, we’re not out there to condemn a whole bunch of private property. To the extent we use it at all, it would only be where there was an absentee landlord or you couldn’t get a hold of something that was a public nuisance anyway.

Q: Why did the agency’s relationship with residents and business owners in North Hollywood, Studio City and Sherman Oaks fall apart?

A: They’re all different areas. I can’t tell you the truth about all of them.

But it’s because I don’t know the answers to those questions that it’s time to have a systematic review of the agency’s functions and procedures. I’ve asked the agency to present its own evaluation of the initial goals and objectives, the implementation strategy, the community relations strategy, the projects in the pipeline, and the underlying financial adequacy--or lack thereof--for every single one of the project areas we have.

And, you know, there are 18 redevelopment areas in the city, three revitalization areas and another 12 recovery zones, so it’s an awesome list of project areas they have to deal with. I’m not sure anyone has a handle on what it’s going to take to do all of them correctly.

Q: Many people in the Valley don’t want the CRA’s help, even for earthquake recovery efforts. How well can the agency help people who don’t want its help?

A: Remember, we don’t invite ourselves in. This is totally a function of the (Los Angeles) City Council’s decision-making responsibility. . . . Ultimately, the initial control is utterly within their hands.

But from where I sit, if there’s all that much opposition in Sherman Oaks, we’re not going to do very much because it’ll be just too hard to get anything done. We’ll waste all of our time and all of our resources trying to help people who don’t want the help.

Q: Let’s talk about redevelopment in a broader sense--its strengths and weaknesses.

A: The redevelopment process is one of the most important processes in North America for curing blight and is a primary catalyst for rejuvenating deteriorated neighborhoods up and down the United States.

Inherent in the value of having a redevelopment function is the ability to contract without having to go through the ordinary bid processes that take forever in municipal government, and the ability to hire your own consultants and the ability to aggregate land, buy, sell or condemn.

Q: Are there any plans to scale back the agency’s work in the Valley, or are you going forward?

A: The fact of the matter is the tax-increment base that provides the agency with the resources to do all these wonderful things--or terrible things, depending on what you think they do--has shrunk tremendously. So the amount of new and discretionary money available to do any kind of redevelopment has dwindled to almost nothing.

My hunch is the expectations are out of proportion to the resources.

Q: What would you like to do in your first few months as CRA board chairman?

A: In the main, prepare the agency for a new executive director. Second, work with the council and mayor to achieve some greater understanding of what the appropriate mission of the agency is. And third, clarify what financial resources are available and not available.

My personal feeling is very guarded. I think there’s a very limited role the agency can play out there (in the Valley). And I’m not even sure we can fulfill the role we’re being asked to fulfill for a whole lot of reasons, popularity being one of them.

If we can do those things, it would be a very big leap forward because as it stands right now, the agency isn’t doing much of anything for anybody.

Q: Are you being critical of the CRA?

A: I think the agency is not perfect. The agency has clearly done some things wrong historically. They are perceived, on the one hand, as being insensitive to neighborhoods and bureaucratic to the people who want development in community redevelopment areas. This is not a good dual reputation to have.

I believe there’s a little truth to each of them. I think the agency has had some difficulties; it’s tried to get beyond them. But redevelopment isn’t always a popularity contest, either.

Q: You have a different set of issues in Burbank, where some homeowners are worried about Warner Bros.’ plans to expand by up to 3.4 million square feet. The proposal includes a dozen new office buildings, several sound stages and other studio facilities.

A: We have submitted an application to the city of Burbank for a master plan, which covers the 106 acres on the main lot and 30 acres on the (Warner Bros.) ranch a mile north. What it really represents is a theoretical potential of future development for the company.

The proposals we set forth, particularly those that relate to the main lot, are consistent with the Media District Specific Plan, which was passed after six years of public debate.

So the overall densities and heights and all of the uses conform to what’s in the Media District Specific Plan.

Q: Some homeowners aren’t as worried about what will happen on the main lot as they are about what will happen on the ranch lot at 3701 W. Oak St. The proposal there calls for five five-story office buildings and a six-story parking structure. The ranch does not fall under the Media District Specific Plan, so they are concerned about the lack of growth-control requirements.

A: There are a couple of people who’d rather have it stay an open field. Most of the discussions we’ve had with the neighbors indicate a willingness to listen to our point of view, and I have not heard an overwhelming amount of negative comment.

There are some concerns about the overall height and bulk, which we’re negotiating. And, you know, we may have to compromise a little in the process to make it a little more palatable to them.

Q: How do you ensure residents living near the Warner Bros. ranch that the character and quality of life in their single-family residential neighborhood remains intact? Are you even obligated to?

A: We’re not obligated to. You can’t ensure anything to anybody. But what we do is tell them what we plan.

We will have a segment of the public hearing process and application process devoted to trying to figure out all the terms and conditions that will ameliorate any potential or theoretical impacts our development will have on them.