City council, CRA recess Chinatown redevelopment hearing to continue county talks

The Los Angeles City Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency recessed a joint public hearing on the proposed First Amendment to the Chinatown redevelopment plan on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, agreeing to continue the hearing to Sept. 19, 2001, to allow further discussion with county staff and any taxing agency that submitted written objections.

The agency’s administrator, Jerry Charlin, told the joint session that the amendment would raise the project’s tax-increment cap from $57,000,000 to $230,000,000 and restate project dates so the agency can carry out the original Chinatown work program. Charlin summarized area conditions cited in the amendment documents, including a high rate of building repair needs: “65% of all office and commercial retail buildings continue to require repair… 71% of all residential buildings continue to require repair,” he said. He also said an outside fiscal consultant judged the amended plan financially feasible and noted extensive community input through the Chinatown Community Advisory Committee’s meetings.

The public hearing drew a lengthy turnout of Chinatown residents and business representatives who largely supported continued redevelopment funding but raised concerns about notice, displacement, private investment and local benefits. Kenneth Yee, pastor at First Chinese Baptist Church, urged the council to “urge the adoption of this amendment” to sustain improvements, while George Yu, interim executive director of the Chinatown Business Improvement District, said the BID “is in full support of the first amendment.” Opponents and some business owners raised questions about increased assessments and whether local businesses — particularly small or century-old operations — would face higher costs.

Doug Lassell, assistant city attorney representing the CRA, responded to several concerns in the hearing record, saying the tax increment funds “do not affect any other areas” and “will not affect the BID nor will it affect or increase the property taxes paid by businesses or persons in Chinatown.” He also said the agency had followed state notice requirements and that copies of the proposed amendment had been available at the CRA.

Agency staff told the council that county representatives requested more discussion. Agency staff asked the joint public hearing be recessed for 90 days to continue talks with the county and any other affected property owner or taxing agency that had filed written objections. The motion to recess for not less than 90 days and close the hearing for all others passed and the council set the next joint hearing date for Sept. 19, 2001. The vote on the council motion was recorded as 12 ayes.

Why it matters: the amendment would expand the amount of tax increment that can be used to carry out Chinatown’s redevelopment program and extend dates for debt and project activities. Proponents say the changes are necessary to address long‑standing physical deterioration and to continue programs such as façade improvements, affordable housing and public safety efforts. Opponents and some business owners worry about cost impacts, notice and whether the benefits will reach all neighborhood stakeholders.

The council and CRA left the record open for written materials; staff said the amendment and related environmental documents remain part of the public record and available at CRA offices. The hearing record now resumes with targeted follow-up with county and any taxing agencies that filed written objections before the council considers final action in September.