Loading...
RA1976/11/2376 -57 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 23, 1976 (1 :00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest Chairman Thom called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 1 :02 p.m. MINUTES: Approval of minutes for the regular meeting held November 16 1976, was deferred one week. , FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $352.77 for this period, in accordance with the 1976 -77 Budget, were approved. MODIFICATION OF PROCEDURE AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF APPRAISALS: Pursuant to recommendation of the Anaheim Redevelopment Commission, Executive Director Norman J. Priest presented proposed amendment to Resolution No. ARA76 -25 deleting the $1500 per parcel limitation on the authority of the Executive Director to retain services of appraisers. Mr. Roth offered Resolution No. ARA76 -36 for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ARA76 -36: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGE_tiCY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour,. Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. ARA76 -36 duly passed and adopted. DEED ACCEPTANCE - 201 - 203 SOLI Following recommendation of the offered Resolution No. ARA76 -37 H CLAUDINA (PHILIP G. Executive Director, M for adoption: LIEPO ET s. Ka RESOLUTION NO. ARA76 -37 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT" AGENCY ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND AUTHORIZING THEIR RECORDATION: (Philip G. Leipold et ux.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None 76 -53 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - November 23, 1976 - 1:00 p.m. Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. ARA76 -27 duly passed and adopted. REPORT ITEM Mr. Priest reported that Joint Public Hearing would be held this evening on proposed amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and on the EIR by the City Council, Agency and Redevelopment. Commission at 7:00 p.m., Fremont Junior High School. (Proposed 2nd Amendment) RECESS: On motion by Mrs. Kaywood, seconded by Mr. Roth, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency recessed to 7:00 p.m., Fremont Junior High School, 608 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. RECESSED: 1 :05 p.m. LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY 76 -59 Fremont Junior Hig School, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 73 1976, 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman Priest COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald ASSOCIATE PLANNER: G. Coulter Hooker ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Bill Cunningham SPECIAL COUNSEL: Eugene B. Jacobs ASSISTANT SPECIAL COUNSEL: Bruce Balmer FINANCIAL CONSULTANT: Gary Jones CONSULTANT: Vicki Endow PRESENT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom ABSENT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Fry, Oseid, Bay, Dinndorf and Moss ABSENT: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Morris and Mendez AFTER RECESS: After recess, Mayor Thom called to order a joint meeting of the Anaheim City Council, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, and the Community Redevelopment Commission, for the purpose of holding a public hearing before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelop- ment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha and the subsequent Environmental "Impact Report for the Amendment. Acting Chairman Moss called the Redevelopment Commission to order. Before proceeding, Councilman'Roth stated that prior to taking office as a ...� Councilman in April, 1976, he disclosed that he owned property at 1000 East Lincoln Avenue, which is located within the boundaries of Project Alpha, in partnership for approximately 10 years. Due to this fact and upon advice of legal counsel, Councilman Roth abstained from discussion and voting on all matters to be considered at the joint meeting. Councilman Roth left the auditorium (7:45 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT P ROJECT ALPHA AND SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 189: A joint public hearing by the City Council, the Redevelopment Agency and the Community Redevelopment Commission to consider the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha and subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 189. Mayor Thom declared this the time and place for public hearing regarding the proposed Second Amendment to Redevelopment Project Alpha as specified in the notice of public hearing published and mailed pursuant to the California Re- development law, noting the record contains the following documents: 1. Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha as adopted July 19, 1973, and amended July 20, 1976. 2. Proposed Second Amendment as changed to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelop- ment Project Alpha. ---R! 3. Report to City Council on the Second Amendment, as changed, to the Redevelop -' plan including in separate documents: A) The report and recommendation of the Planning Commission. B) The summary of activities and information pre- sented to the Project Area Committee. C) The subsequent environmental impact report for the proposed amendment. 4. The report and recommendation of the Project Area Committee. Mayor Thom announced that a written Agenda would govern the course of the meeting and that all persons who wished to speak would be afforded the oppor- tunity to do so,having been duly sworn in by the City Clerk; white forms were distributed to all persons who wished to indicate their approval, opposition, or to take no position on the proposed amendment and subsequent environmental' impact report, upon which it was requested that they also indicate whether or not they wished to speak at the hearing. 76 -60 Fremont Junior High School, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 23, 1976, 7:30 P.M. All staff members and consultants who would participate in the presentation and /or discussion of the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan were duly sworn in by the City Clerk. Mr. Norman Priest, Executive Director, stated that while he was fairly new with the Agency and the City, he had reviewed the record of Project Alpha carefully and in his experience had found very few such projects so well scrutinized and so thoroughly brought to the public. As a result the pro- posed Second Amendment was the best thinking of staff, as well as input of those people who attended the long series of public meetings. Mr. Knowlton Fernald, Community Development Director, emphasized for the people in the audience that the proposed amendment did not make all of the decisions that needed to be made over the next several years,but it set long range goals relative to general land use and circulation patterns. He indicated it was the framework for the Redevelopment Project as it would be implemented during the years to come. Mr. Fernald emphasized that to get to this point, citizens of the City and particularly of the Project area were involved in the process in every way possible which process included private developers, property owners, residents and businessmen. He explained that subsequent to the submittal of a concept plan in December, 1975; the subject plan.was modified particularly in view of the City Council's state- ments to redirect the process and goals of the Agency in response to input from citizens. Mr. Fernald elaborated on the public forums that followed and the resultant consensus plan presented by the Project Area Committee (PAC) which plan was documented at the direction of the Redevelopment Commission in order to bring it through a series of public hearings. That same consensus plan was also prepared as an amendment to the City's General Plan and subsequently approved by the City Council on November 16, 1976. Mr. Fernald stated that the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment being con- sidered this evening was reviewed and recommended by the Project Area Committee as well as the City Planning Commission. The proposed plan also included modi- fication in the text of the plan to bring it up to date in that later hearings would be necessary to finalize both public and private projects and to deal with matters such as precise road alignments. Relative to.the subsequent EIR, Mr. Fernald stated that it examined the environ- mental impact of the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan Alpha and that the draft subsequent Environmental Impact Report dated September, 1976, was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated to more than 26 persons, organizations and public agencies for review. He indicated that subsequent comments received were outlined in Chapter 15, 16 and 17 of the subsequent EIR. Mr. Fernald then briefed the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Redevelopment Commission and the audience of the summary portion of the subsequent Environ- mental Impact Report as well as all of the proposed amendments to the Redevelop- ment Plan for Project Alpha, Amendments 1 through 14, contained in part II, "Report to the City Council on the Second Amendment as changed to the Redevelop- ment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha" dated October 6, 1976. For reference, he also showed slides of the location of the Redevelopment Project illustrating the two non- contiguous areas involved but stated the primary concern at this meeting was the downtown area surrounded by Harbor.Boulevard, Broadway, Cypress and East Streets. In conclusion, Mr. Fernald emphasized that in light of having spent a great deal of time and effort on the development of the proposed plan with extensive. citizen participation in its design, they were ready to move on the implementation phase upon favorable consideration. 76 -61 Fremont Junior High School, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 2`3, 1976, 7:30 P.M. Al The Mayor called for oral comments, statements and questions on the subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Amendment. Prior to each individual giving testimony, they were duly sworn in by the City Clerk. William S. Woods, 1400 Dana Place, Fullerton, Chairman of the Project.Area Committee (PAC), explained that his group consisted of 16 volunteer citizens established as a committee by the Redevelopment law to serve as an intermediary between residents, tenants and business people in the Project area. He indicateu that PAC had diligently studied the many ramifications of Redevelopment in Anaheim and considered each of its facets individually at the meeting in which they voted on the proposed amendments, 11 members were present and in each instance the vote was 11 to nothing in favor of the amendments. The Mayor then called for written communications received in favor of adoption of the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha: I. Mr. John Flocken, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, 130 South Lemon Street - letter dated November 23, 1976. 2. Mr. Larry King, 218 South Florette Street, I representing the Ana - Modjeska Players. Although Mr. King did not wish to speak, he noted in his comments that the Second Amendment on anti -bias made no reference to either the handicapped or the aged, both of which were on the bias exclusion lists of other such projects. The Mayor then called for those in favor of the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha who wished to address the.joint meeting and the following individuals gave all comments in favor of the proposed amendment: Mr. David S. Collins, 952 Flore Street, Anaheim; Lt. Col E. F. Rhoads (RET.), 122 North Vine Street, Anaheim. Both Mr. Collins and Mr. Rhoades were emphatic in stating that it was time to move forward on the project with zest, zeal and great dispatch. Mayor Thom called for written communications received in opposition to the adoption of the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelop- ment Project Alpha: Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Edwards, 1107 W. West Avenue No. F, Fullerton, representing the Church of His Holy Presence - Grace Chapel (South Gate, California); Mr. Adolph Philip Miller, 1859 Random Drive, Anaheim. . Mayor Thom called for all statements and questions by persons opposed to the adoption of the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Rede- velopment Project Alpha and the following addressed the Council: Mr. Edwin Peterson, 526 West. Chestnut Street, Apt. A, a tenant and resident in the area representing Redwood Realty; Mr. George H. Lange, with a business address at 106 North Claudina Street, Anaheim, representing property owners in the Pro- ject Alpha area of Anaheim; Dr. John Mullender, 1730 Roanoke, Placentia, Associate Superintendent of the Placentia Unified School District; Mr. John J. Murphy, Rutan and Rucker, 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, repre- senting the Placentia Unified School District. Dr. Mullender stated that he was instructed by the Board of Education of the Placentia Unified School District to present a statement and ask Mr. John Murphy, legal counsel, also representing the District,to read the statement. Mr. Murphy indicated that the Board of Education of the Placentia Unified School District wished to emphasize that it did not take issue with Anaheim's efforts to rehabilitate the downtown area, but the only issue and position it requested be conveyed was the manner proposed to finance rehabilitation. Mr. Murphy read the prepared statement, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) the substance of which was the fact that approximately 80% of the tax increment funds going to Project Alpha thus had come from the northeast industrial section which lies almost entirely within the Placentia Unified School District, thereby resulting in a tax increase for the property owners of PUSD. The School District was interested in finding solutions to what they considered to be a dilemma. 76 -62 Fremont Junior High School., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 23, 1976. 7:30 P.M. In closing, Mr. Murphy stated for the record,opposition to the further - implementation of Project Alpha so long as it included the northeast industrial section of Anaheim and urged deferral of the Second Amendment until either an agree- ment between the Agency and the District was reached or until the Second Amend— ment was revised to exclude from Alpha the territory within the Placentia Unified School District. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Thomas Catterson, 856 North West Street, Anaheim, stated he was concerned that the Redevelopment Plan would be successful in bringing about more smog and pollution than now existed. He noted that a great deal of effort was made to inform the people of the Redevelopment Plan and he was surprised that such an effort was not made simpler by putting the matter on the ballot so the electorate could vote on it. There being no further written or oral comments received in favor, opposition or taking no position on the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha and subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 189, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Acting Chairman Moss declared the public hearing before the Community Redevelop— ment Commission closed. The Mayor asked if any Agency Members wished to ask questions or needed further information or clarification of the final subsequent EIR; there was no response. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. ARA76 -38: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution.No. ARA76 -38 for adoption, certifying the subsequent EIR relative to the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA76 -38: A.RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SECOND AIMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA AND DE- TERMINING THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OR SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. (EIR No. 189) Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGE14CY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Roth The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA76 -38 duly passed and adopted. The Mayor asked if any Members of the Council or Redevelopment Commission desired to ask questions or needed further information or clarification of the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan or subsequent EIR or related documents. Mr. Priest suggested that it would be appropriate to respond to certain questions raised and that he and Mr. Fernald would speak to them from an operational standpoint,and Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Hopkins from a legal stand- point. Relative to the question of including the provision for the aged and handi- capped, Mr. Jacobs indicated that this was not required by law but he had seen these categories included in other recent projects. Mr. Priest referred to the matter of the church on Broadway which he presumed was the one to which the people representing the Church of His Holy Presence was speaking. He explained that discussion had been held with the Pastor and members of the Church indicating the Agency's willingness to work with them 76 -63 Offi Fremont Junior High School ., California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 23 1976 7:30 P.M. on the assumption that the Church was structurally sound. Mr. Priest was of the opinion that it would be possible to coordinate the matter with the overall development. Mr. Jacobs indicated that if the Church could not remain, it would be properly paid for and possibly relocated so there would be no financial sacrifice as �a alluded to in the comment received. He added that if it were found to be structurally sound and remained in the area, there would be added value with the surrounding neighborhood having been rehabilitated. Mr. Priest spoke to the concern of both Mr. Collins and Rhoads that the Agency should move forward as rapidly as possible. He explained that initial negotia- tions were proceeding and that relative to Lincoln Avenue, its precise align- ment would be going before the Planning Commission in the not too distant future. Mr. Jacobs emphasized that the proposed changes did not require Lincoln to be moved north or south, but that precise alignment would be worked out with individual property owners and developers who might come in. Mr. Priest indicated that relative to the comment by Mr. Lange on the use of a parcel of property suggested to be changed from.commercial to residential, thereby bringing about inverse condemnation, the proposed plan specifically provided that compatible commercial uses along Lincoln may remain in those locations where it would be physically possible to do so. He asked that Mr. Fernald give the background which led to the designation of the area as residential. Mr. Fernald explained that in the concept plan, the area in question - -the vicinity of Harbor Boulevard, Lemon Street and Anaheim Boulevard - -was considered to be the one for intensive commercial development considering its location. In the final analysis, however, the block of residents involved expressed a strong desire to have the areas remain residential which resulted in finding that determination. Mr. Jacobs referred to the comment made by Mr. Lange concerning inverse con- demnation and stated that if the Agency purchased the subject property, it would be purchased as commercial property and not residential thereby necessitating purchase at commercial prices. If the owners decided to keep the property and subsequently decided to build on it, they would have to build residential. Stewart Moss wanted it made clear that what was taking place at the meeting was not a rezoning action. Mr. Jacobs explained, however, that adoption of the Redevelopment Plan would require rezoning to take place at an appropiiate time. Mr. Priest then asked Mr. Jacobs to speak to Dr. Mullender's concern dealing with the financing of the project which essentially involved the interpretation of the Redevelopment law. Mr. Jacobs explained that subsequent to the meetings between members of the School District, Redevelopment Agency, Council Members, Agency staff and his staff, it was his understanding that a list of facilities was to be prepared by the School District and submitted to the'Agency. He indicated there was apparent- ly some confusion as he was awaiting such a list before proceeding. Both Dr. Mullender and Mr. Jacobs agreed that there was a communication gap relative to the draft agreement to be provided by the City. O."W% Mr. Jacobs emphasized there was no clash with the Placentia Unified School District and.while they were not totally opposed to the method of financing the Redevelopment Project by the use of a tax increment, they wanted to be certain it was not detrimental to them. He was confident that negotiations were at a point where a quick solution would be found. ' Mr. Jacobs explained that the Code Section referred to in the statement previ- ously read by Mr. Murphy did not undercut the basis for adoption of the Project and, in fact, broadened it. He stressed that the northeast industrial area was not included for the sole purpose of obtaining an allocation of taxes with- out substantial justification for inclusion. The area was included for Code purposes. He further stated that the matter was somewhat irrelevant in light of the first alternative suggested in the prepared statement, which alter- native could be worked out expeditiously as soon as the necessary data was provided by the School District. 76 -64 Fremont Junior High School, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 23. 1976. 7:30 P.M. Mr. Jacobs then briefly remarked on additional comments that were made: (1) Negotiations with the shopping center people were for the purpose of ascer- taining that the cost for such a center would be justified, (2) Under the Redevelopment process, as opposed to a Federal process, useful life buildings are kept unless there is a better financial use, (3) Store front rehabilita- tion such as being proposed in Garden Grove was not applicable in Anaheim, (4) The project was truly a public /private contemplated situation; public expenditures were only to the extent that they would bring about public /private solutions to the problems. Mayor Thom explained that the very clearly stated goal of the Agency, Council and Commission was a plan flexible enough to accommodate what the private sector could and would do relative to Redevelopment in Anaheim and that the function of their respective bodies was to provide those tools in law in order to be able to work with the private sector in planning an orderly redevelopment process. He explained that working in cooperation with the private sector was the only way such a project would survive economically as long as the plan was also in the general parameters of community desires. Relative to the realignment of Lincoln, the Mayor emphasized that it may or may not be aligned but it would be dependent upon a proposal the Council, Agency and Commission would be considering. He reiterated that, the plan provided the flexibility to accommodate a.project the citizenry and the private sector may want. Concerning smog and pollution, the Mayor indicated that the environmental impact report spoke to the matter but further consideration would be part of future discussion and decision making when the appropriate time arrived. Mr. Jacobs interjected that if the verbiage relative to the "aged" and "handi- capped"were to be added,that they be added under Amendment 6, after the.wor:d "sex" on the bottom of Page 3, as well as Amendment 10 on the fourth line of the bottom of Page 5 after the word "sex ", and recommended that the_Commission might want to speak to the change and make a motion recommending same. On motion by Commissioner Bay, seconded by Commissioner Dinndorf, the Redevelopment Commission included the words "aged'and'handicapped'to Amendments 6 and 10 of the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha at the location so designated by legal counsel. Commission Members Morris and Mendez were absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, both the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council included the words"aged'and'handi- capped "to Amendments 6 and 10 of the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha at the location so designated by legal counsel. Councilman Roth absent. MOTION CARRIED. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CRC76 -17: Commissioner Bay offered Resolution No. CRC76 -17 for.adoption certifying a final subsequent EIR to the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelop- ment Project Alpha. RESOLUTION NO. CRC76 -17: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA AND DETERMINING THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OR SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRON- MENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COMMISSION MEMBERS: Bay, Oseid, Fry, Dinndorf and Moss NOES: COMMISSION MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS: Morris and Mendez 76 -65 Fremont Junior High School, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 23, 1976, 7:30 P.M. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLU NO CRC76 -18: Commissioner approving the Second Amendment and recommending the City to Fry offered Resolution No. CRC76 -18 for adoption, Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha Council adopt said Second Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. CRC76 -18: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT SAID AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED. Before a vote was taken, Commissioner Bay wanted his views known relative to the way in which he saw the Second Amendment changing the Redevelopment Plan. He explained that four changes were involved: (1) It eliminated the previous tourist oriented, commercial- recreation areas to preserve the residential areas of the City, (2) It increased the flexibility of the Plan to what.he called design to development which he considered to be the best way to plan anything that was going to take 30 years to complete, (3) Because of the added flexibility, it increased the Agency's power and put the prime responsibility of the effectiveness of the on.the Rede- velopment Agency, which is the Council, and on the.CBmmission, (4) It now defined and increased public owned improvements thereby making it clear that there would be community improvements included in the Plan. A vote was taken on the foregoing Resolution. AYES: COMMISSION MEMBERS: Bay, Oseid, Fry, Dinndorf and Moss NOES: COMMISSION MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS: Mendez and Morris ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 76R -753: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 76R -753 for adoption certifying the final subsequent EIR to the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rede- velopment Project Alpha. Refer to Resolution Book. R NO. 76R -753: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA AND DETERMINING THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OR SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. (EIR No. 189) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 76R -753 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Jacobs recommended that the proposed ordinance be given first reading tonight and in the interim he would work with the Placentia Unified School District. At the time of the second and final reading if there was any reason to do so, the matter could be deferred. ORDINANCE NO. 3631: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3631 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3631: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3190, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3567, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA. ADJOURNMENT - COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Commissioner Fry moved to adjourn, Commissioner Dinndorf seconded the motion. Commissioners Morris and Mendez were absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:10 P.M.) The Mayor thanked the Project Area Committee, the Redevelopment Commission and the Planning Commission for the many hours spent in the redirection of the redevelopment effort and, because of the absence of a great surge of citizenry opposed to the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, it was 76 -66 Fremont Junior High School, Anaheim, California — COUNCIL MINUTES November 23, 1976, 7:30 P.M. an indication that there was majority approval of the citizenry to proceed with due speed on the Redevelopment Plan. ADJOURNMENT - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Mr. Kott moved to adjourn. Mr. Seymour seconded the motion. Mr. Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Kott moved to adjourn, Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (9:14 P.M.) ADJOURNED: 9:14 P.M. { LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK /SECRETARY