RA1974/10/1574 -26 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
October 15, 1974 (4 :50 P.M.)
Council Chambers
Anaheim City Hall
PRESENT: Mrs. Kaywood, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Pebley, Mr. Sneegas and
Mr. Thom
ABSENT: None
PRESENT: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
CITY ATTORNEY: Alan
SECRETARY: Alona M.
ZONING SUPERVISOR:
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
DIRECTOR: Robert M. Davis
R. Watts
Hougard
Charles Roberts
Christian Hogenbirk
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Thom.
MINUSES Minutes of the meeting held October 1, 1974, were approved
on motion by Mr. Sneegas, seconded by Mr. Pebley. MOTION CARRIED.
REDEVELO COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. C -74 -2 : Redevelopment Agency
consideration of Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. CRC -74 -2
was continued from the meetings of September 17 and October 1,
1974. Said resolution was adopted by the Commission August 28,
1974, and recommended to the City Council of the City of Anaheim
that said Council consider divesting itself of its function as
the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and appoint a separate Agency.
As one Redevelopment Agency Member, Mr. Thom stated it
was his feeling that at a future time it will be very appropriate
to transfer the Agency status to the Redevelopment Commission,
but he felt that time should come after the Agency has approved a
conceptual redevelopment plan for Project "Alpha ", a Director has
been employed and preliminary work completed by the Commission.
Mr. Seymour concurred, being of the opinion that it would
be premature to pass the Agency powers over to the Commission until
such time as the most specific plan possible can be developed, an
Executive Director is employed who agrees with the plan, and said
plan is communicated to the citizens and meets with their approval.
Then, when there is sufficient confidence in the plan, and the
redevelopment process has begun, the responsibility may be trans-
ferred to a separate agency.
Mr. Pebley was of the opinion that the Agency powers
should never be removed from the City Council, since present and
future Council Members are subject to replacement by the citizenry.
Mr. Seymour pointed out that he had not been referring
to a total transference of powers, but to the vesting of qualified
powers, to the degree that the City Council and elected officials
would maintain the powers to replace, reappoint or dismiss one or
more members of the future agency. He felt that any action taken
by that Agency, if felt by the City Council not to be in the best
interests of the citizens, could be rectified by the Council.
Mr. Pebley felt that a person elected by and accountable
to the people might take different actions than someone having too
much power; that once an action has been taken and effected, it
would be too late to correct it.
74 -27
Redevelopment Agency, October 15, 1974, Continued
Mr. Seymour felt the citizens would have direct access
to the Council Members to voice any objections. As a case in
point, he noted that in the 1974 Municipal Election, the phil-
osophy of the City Council was turned around by the people to
reflect a new view, however this did not mean that all projects
they felt were unfavorable were torn down. Further, he noted
that the City Planning Commission has certain powers, such as
to grant variances and conditional use permits.
Mr. Pebley noted he had been under the impression that
once the Agency powers are turned over to the Commission, the
City Council would have very little authority.
Mr. Seymour was of the opinion that would be true
only if the City Council gave away their right to appoint and
dismiss Agency Members.
Mr. Thom noted that to his knowledge, there has never
been a successful urban redevelopment project in the State of
California where the City Council acted as the Redevelopment
Agency; the only successful projects have come about under a
separate agency, due to the sheer preponderance of the work
involved.
Mrs. Kaywood concurred, and
whatever can be written in to retain t h
be done. She reported on calls she has
ing future Project "Beta ", and felt it
impossible for the Council to carry on
load increases, since presently only t h
all of the Council's responsibilities
Mr. Watts reported that when
is ready to consider the transference
he would be prepared to make a report
involved.
was of the opinion that
e Council's rights should
already received concern -
would be physically
as the Agency as the work
ree members are sharing
and outside activities.
the Redevelopment Agency
of the responsibilities,
on some of the concerns
Mr. Sneegas was of the opinion it is important that the
project succeed, in view of the money to be spent and the effort
to be expended, and that the City Council should be relieved of
some of the responsibilities, but not of the authority of condem-
nation. He recalled that during the original hearings when Project
"Alpha" was being initiated, he made a commitment to many people
that the project was as safe as those politicians whose responsi-
bility it is to administer it. Most of the concern seems to be
relative to condemnations, and he felt the Agency should not be
the sole scapegoat nor the sole decision - maker.
Mr. Seymour stated that he did not necessarily disagree
with the position taken by Mr. Sneegas, if it is viable and possible
to achieve, and the City Council is able to insure it and estab-
lishes a speedy process to accomplish the goals.
Mr. Sneegas stated that there should be five Councilmen
who let their opinions on condemnations be known.
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Pebley moved to adjourn. Mr. Thom seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 5 :05 P.M.
SIGNED: /, ✓��• ;
Secretary, Redevelo ment Agency