NORTHEAST VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT DEBATED.

Byline: Michael Coit Staff Writer

The battle over redevelopment in the Northeast San Fernando Valley erupted again Thursday during a final public hearing on the environmental report for the 6,835-acre project.

The environmental report anticipates overall impacts from low-, moderate- and high-development scenarios and does not identify specific projects, which will follow once the redevelopment plan is approved.

Critics who want the project scaled back or scrapped contended the report makes assurances in areas of planning, traffic circulation and public services that have not been met in other redevelopment areas, including the neighboring North Hollywood project.

``It glosses over the issues. It makes a lot of claims about what will happen - and it doesn't happen,'' said Mildred Weller of North Hollywood Concerned Citizens.

Backers urged the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency to approve the final environmental report when it is completed so improvements can start in one of the city's poorest areas.

``This area has long been neglected with development, job opportunities and home ownership,'' said Caron Caine of San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services.

The agency's board members did not make any comments. The final environmental report is expected to be completed by March for the board's consideration.

The hearing was needed because only three of the board's seven members attended the scheduled public hearing in Pacoima on Dec. 2. Four board members attended Thursday's meeting, held during a regular board meeting at the agency's headquarters downtown.

Some speakers complained that the hearing wasn't held in the project area and urged the board to hold meetings concerning Valley projects in the Valley.

Lillian Burkenheim, director of the Valley projects, said the board holds public meetings on projects in those areas every two to three years compared with a legal requirement to hold them every five years.

The Northeast Valley project, covering Pacoima, Sun Valley, Lake View Terrace and Arleta, would be the city's largest.

The environmental report stated that the range of development levels would result in unavoidable and significant adverse impacts to air quality, fire services, parks and loss of open space.

Impacts that the report stated could be reduced included land-use conflicts and community settings, traffic congestion and demand on police services, schools and libraries.

Opposition centers on whether the boundaries are too large. Critics charge the 11-square-mile area would divert $1.1 billion in property taxes over 45 years from the city, county and schools to be spent on redevelopment.

Some also question whether the redevelopment agency is seeking to divert property taxes to help pay for rehabilitation and development projects in the area or needs the revenue to bolster the agency's finances.

``Redevelopment is wonderful if it's done properly, but if it's not there's the problem of not enough infrastructure to take care of it and that's the nightmare of redevelopment,'' said Tom Hoener of the Volunteer Center in Panorama City.

Supporters contend commercial, industrial and housing development is critical to the future of the communities in an area plagued by poor city planning and the loss of well-paying jobs over the past decade.

This is not ``business as usual,'' said Marlene Grossman of Pacoima Beautiful. ``Let's go out there and put on our thinking caps so that we can get some new and innovative ideas and actually get something done.''

Community Redevelopment Agency officials have said the final redevelopment plan should be presented to the agency's board this spring.

Many critical issues have not been settled. In addition to the proposed area's size, there is the extent and authority for taking property through eminent domain and the extent of new development.

There also are plans to provide financial and technical assistance to attract businesses and help existing ones, and help to rehabilitate homes and neighborhoods.