Loading...
RA1978/08/0878 -109 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY August 8, 1978 (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth, Seymour ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley ABSENT: CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest Chairman Seymour called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelop- ment Agency to order. MINUTES: On motion by Mr. Roth, seconded by Mr. Overholt, minutes of the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency held July 11, 1978 were approved. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount o 312,312.02 in accordance with the 1978-79 budget were approved. 161.157: AWARD OF BID LANDSCAPING AND SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT HARBOR CENTER In accordance with the recommendation of the Executive Director Mrs. Kaywood offered Resolution No. ARA78 -87 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. ARA78 -87 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK OF IMPROVEMENT; TO WIT: INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT HARBOR CENTER (LAMANITE SPECI- MEN $5,806.55) Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth, and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA78 -87 duly passed and adopted. Mr. Kott explained that he has abstained from voting on the contract since there was only one bid received and he has no way of knowing whether this is a reasonable price, there is nothing with which to compare. 78 -110 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - 1:00 P.M. 161.157: INVITATION FOR BIDS - RELOCATION OF FIRE ESCAPE EL CAMINO BANK BUILDING In accordance with the recommendation of the Executive Director, Mr. Roth offered Resolution No. ARA78 -88 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. ARA78 -88 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: RELOCATION OF FIRE ESCAPE, 106 NORTH CLAUDINA STREET, EL CAMINO BANK BUILDING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CONTRACT NO. FE78 -1, ACCOUNT NO. 82- 364- 6245- 00973. Bids to be opened 2:00 P.M. August 31, 1978.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kott ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Mr. Kott stated that he was not previously convinced that these al- terations are really a necessity and still remains unconvinced. 161.123: AGREEMENT FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - GENE G. MAHAFFEY: Recommendation of the Executive Director that the Agency approve the terms and conditions of an agreement for technical assistance relative to demolition and site improvements with Gene G. Mahaffey for not to exceed $15,000 was submitted. Mr. Priest explained for Mr. Kott that this gentleman would perform inspection work at each demolition site and that this is a continua- tion of similar services he has provided over the past year. Mr. Overholt offered Resolution No. ARA78 -89 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. ARA78 -89 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH GENE G. MAHAFFEY, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth, Overholt and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA78 -89 duly passed and adopted. 78 -111 161.107: FINAL ACCEPTANCE DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE 114 S. HARBOR ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - 1:00 P.M. BLVD. CONTRACT NO. D78-6): In accor ance wit the certi ication submitted y the Executive Director, Mr. Kott offered Resolution No. ARA78 -90 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. ARA78 -90 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A WORK OF IMPROVEMENT. (CONTRACT NO. D78 -6 VIKING EQUIPMENT CORPORATION) Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth, Overholt and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA78 -90 duly passed and adopted. 161.123 FINAL ACCEPTANCE SIGN WORK AT HARBOR CENTER: In accordance with the certi ication submitted by the Executive Director, Mr. Kott offered Resolution No. ARA78 -91 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. ARA78 -91 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A WORK OF IMPROVEMENT. (Contract No. 002754) (ACS ENTERPRISES) Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth, Overholt and Seymour None None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA78 -91 duly passed and adopted. 161.150 REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE AGENCY - DIANN MARSH Ms. Marsh read a prepared statement to the Agency (on file in the office of the City Clerk) dated August 7, 1978 indicating that an informal group has met and has collected some 1,530 signatures on petitions requesting a 120 -day moratorium on redevelopment spending, that a public audit of the Agency's financial practices and present condition and ability to repay bonded indebtedness be prepared. She added that they now have 1,736 signatures obtained in what was not really planned to be a large campaign. 78 -112 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 (1:00 P.M.) Ms. Marsh also read a statement entitled "Comment on the Financial Position of the CRA" (on file in the office of the City Clerk) dis- closing a summary of the expenditures, bonded indebtedness and operating expenses of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. The state- ment indicates that since the passage of Proposition 13 the financing of many special districts such as community redevelopment agencies has been called into question and it therefore behooves the city to ••. understand the present and future status of redevelopment in light of the Jarvis Initiative and to rethink its present spending patterns. Ms. Marsh's presentation ultimately requestea,because of the effect of Proposition 13 on the city's redevelopment project, that the Agency establish a moratorium on all redevelopment spending including demolition, acquisition and relocation, until the actual amount of money available has been assessed and more recent priorities established. She voiced the opinion that the audit currently in progress should be made public; that there be an examination made of Agency staff's prac- tices, present condition and ability to repay bonded indebtedness. In addition, Ms. Marsh commented that most of the people she had spoken to did not believe in the need to spend money for the moving of Lincoln Avenue when funds are so limited at this time, and despite a recent article in the Los Angeles Ttimes stating that historic sites will be preserved in Anaheim's Redevelopment Project Area, the four sites included on the new plan for redevelopment are, in her opinion, very inadequate as far as historic buildings are concerned. At the completion of the presentation Mrs. Kaywood asked whether the petitions containing the 1,736 signatures had been submitted to the City Clerk and Ms. Marsh submitted one original petition containing 19 signatures, advising that the remainder would be turned in later this date. (No additional original petitions containing signatures have been presented to the City Clerk's office as of the time of the preparation of these minutes.) Chairman Seymour opened the floor for discussion and allowed first for comments from the public in support of Ms. Marsh's request for a morato- rium on spending for Redevelopment Project Alpha activities. The following is a list of the persons who spoke and their major points: (1) Patricia Bayley, 801 N. Loara recited an original poem opposing demolition. (2) Michael Valenti, 202 E. Adele Street felt the Agency should redirect redevelopment to take into more sensitive considera- tion the nature of the community as it exists. (3) Margaret Zapala, 2431 Strong Place voiced the opinion that Anaheim although in general a forward community, is far behind other communities in preserving its heritage and felt in particular the Union Pacific Train Depot on Lincoln Avenue should be preserved. (Mr. Donald Kirk, 200 Midway Drive Anaheim advised that there is a citizen effort underway to save the railroad depot to be used as a museum.) 78 -113 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 (1:00 P.M.) (4) Mrs. Arnie Adkinson, 830 S. Holly Street stated that she felt the architecture of the buildings in the downtown area could be of great historical value. As a 22 year resident of the city of Anaheim she requested that the Council Agency members take a second look at what is being done. (5) Denise Ott, 727 Juniper St, Placentia, a 19 -year resident of Anaheim, indicated that she would prefer the downtown area preserved not in museums but so that adults and children might walk or drive through and see what old Anaheim looked like; that the city is not preserving much of its heritage for the children. (6) Donna Rae Farmer, 4222 N. Claudina Street spoke against redevelopment, as in her past experience, this replaces the colorful downtown atmosphere with sterile buildings; she suggested an "old town" type of development to preserve some of the downtown area as was undertaken in downtown Seattle, Washington. (7) George Kohlenberger, 314 N. Philadelphia Street stated that he has paid taxes in this community for over 75 years and commented on the degree to which average Americans are angered over taxation. He felt it is timely that the city take a second look at the direction of redevelopment and more particularly whether it should be considered progress or demolition. (8) Joseph Shea, 905 N. Dickel Street stated that he has been in Anaheim for 60 years and cited the recent meeting of the county sanitation district as an additional example of the ire of the American taxpayers. (9) Rose Deneau, 236 N. Claudina Street stated that in her opinion redevelopment in downtown.Anaheim has destroyed businesses, family livelihoods and caused many personal headaches. She alleged that it is being guided by a few for their own personal gain despite the fact that the citizens, in municipal elections, voted against redevelopment three times; that the redevelopment plan was not sub- mitted to the people until it was already in the works for a long time. Following Mrs. Deneau's comments the Chairman noted to his recollection the issue of redevelopment has never been placed on a ballot in the city of Anaheim; that the charge that those who stand to gain millions as a result of redevelopment he considered to be serious and that if she were aware of, or had documentation to evidence this as a fact, then the Redevelopment Agency would certainly be interested in receiv- ing it as well as receiving the names of any individuals whom she feels received preferential treatment in the redevelopment process. However, if the allegations she has made are unfounded, then they are clearly out of order. Mrs. Deneau stated that she would present documentation at a later date and left the Chamber. 78 -114 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 (1:00 P.M.) (10) Mr. John Christie, 1508 W. Lorraine Way stated that he is presently the owner of the Pickwick Hotel and is interested in preserving this building and also is willing to put out the necessary money to accomplish same. There being no further persons who wished to speak in support of the requested moratorium, Mr. Priest was asked to respond to some of the issues and questions raised in the previous dialogue. Mr. Priest prefaced his remarks with the proviso that he would not address the philosophical points of redevelopment nor the origination of the program as he felt the former issue to be a policy matter to be determined by the Agency and the latter he could not discuss in that he was not here when the program was originated. Mr. Priest submitted the following information, which was primarily addressed to questions raised in the "Comment Upon the Financial Position of the CRA" submitted by Diann Marsh: (1) Under the laws of the State of California tax increment financing must come from within the limits of the project areas; bonds issued by the Agency, by law, are required to indicate that they are not a debt of the city or any political subdivision nor can city funds be utilized to repay these; that the Agency currently may have title to somewhere near 3 million dollars of property but the 300 million quoted in the comment upon the financial position of the CRA is grossly off target; information on tax increment bonds is readily available at the Community Development Department in printed form and has been ever since bonds were issued; service costs for this year are $1,800,000, the maximum amount of bond service costs at any time during the en- tire period of bond issue will be $2,500,000 and that would be some 5 years from now; the Agency financial statement indicates it would have sufficient funds to support the program if there were no addi- tional tax increments, i.e., the Agency calculations are based on the 1975 -76 tax roll,increasing that 2% per year, which assumes no con- struction whatsoever in the project since 1975 -76 and based upon this extremely conservative figure there is enough to support the bond issue; that he personally concurs with the people who feel the Union Pacific Train Station should be saved and indicated the Agency has no plans for demolition of that structure; that there seems to have been in the previous dialogue an emphasis on site clearance and he pointed out that better than half of the redevelopment project will be devoted to neighborhood preservation. In response to the allegations that there has been anything illegal or improper in the administration of the program or formulation of the participation agreements, Mr. Priest took exception, noting that from his perspective nothing of that nature has taken place in any organization with which he has been associated and if that individual has such information as to anything improper he would certainly like to know about it. 78 -115 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - (1:00 P.M.) The Chairman offered those who wished to speak against the moratorium an opportunity to speak and following are listed the speakers and their major points of discussion: (1) Stewart Moss, 491 Via Vista, currently Vice - Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Commission, noted that prior to Mr. Priest's employment as Executive Director the Commission and Agency members invited the general public, not just those within the project area, to participate in a series of meetings which were widely and exten- sively publicized. These were well attended, and as a result the redirection effort was initiated by the City Council which was a change in the original Redevelopment Alpha Project Plan. The original project Alpha Plan reflected a much larger commercial activity and the change was to a plan more directed toward the neighborhood preservation and the rights and desires of the citizens living in the area. The Agency has now begun to implement that plan and is in such a status that a moratorium, bringing about a cessation of activity, would be tantamount to making the downtown area dead for some period of time. He pointed out that the largest portion of the money being spent on redevelopment in the downtown area is being spent by private investors. He concurred that there is a need for historical preservation but felt this should be tempered with some realism. (2) Larry King, 218 S. Florette, Chairman of the Project Area Committee, invited all those who are interested in learning about the redevelopment project to obtain information from the PAC Office at 132 E. Lincoln Avenue, telephone number 991 -6850. He added that after 5 years of planning the project is now visibly moving with sound contracts and that the Agency would be in violation of these contracts if they ordered a moratorium. He reported that the PAC had voted at their last meeting to express opposition to any morato- rium by a vote of 10 to 1, with one abstention. Mr. Kott requested and received clarification from the City Attorney that it is possible the Agency would be subject to law suits in the event of a moratorium, but that each contract would have to be ana- lyzed individually. (3) Ben Bay, 2148 W. Grayson submitted to Agency members copies of a letter to the editor from Diann Marsh published in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, April 30, 1978. He voiced the opinion that a great deal of misinformation regarding redevelopment has been promulgated and very few facts. He noted that a professional analysis indicates after Proposition 13 the tax yield will provide money for principle and interest payments on outstanding bonds as well as for public facility construction and other commitments; the tax increment financ- ing permits local agencies such as the city to utilize funds which would otherwise go to the county, state or other districts, for im- provements in the community in which they are collected; that it is 78 -116 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - (1:00 P.M.) the elected officials and not staff or the Community Redevelopment Commission who make policy decisions regarding redevelopment and it is apparent to him that the majority opinion of the community approves of the way the redevelopment program is being implemented; that there is a small group of people who want to stop redevelopment because they don't like some particular aspect of it regardless of the fact that many public hearings were held prior to developing the plan; that do- ing nothing about downtown Anaheim will cause the undesirable changes which the city has been experiencing over the past 20 years to continue whereas the redevelopment project is designed to make downtown Anaheim into an asset rather than a tax liability. (4) Herb Leo, 2906 Bellamy Avenue recalled that Anaheim has actually been in the process of redevelopment for the last 50 years and has seen these downtown buildings rebuilt more than once. He noted that private developers as of about 10 years ago could no longer assemble parcels of sufficient size for redevelopment and this law has enabled the process to proceed. He cautioned that it is not known how many developers were driven away the last time the Agency established a redirection to the redevelopment program and that another redirection might cause the program to lose its credibility. (5) Donald Kirk, 200 Midway Drive, Anaheim stated that in 1972 and 1973 he recalled that there were meetings at the old, former Zion Lutheran Church on Chartres Street where anyone who wished to speak was allowed to present his views on redevelopment. He has also learned from Mr. Priest that the Agency is attempting to save some of the older buildings. (6) Doug Renner, 420 W. Liberty noted that as a descendant of some of Anaheim's early settlers, he is very interested in preserving the history and heritage of the city, but noted that part of this heritage is progress and change. He stated that when he first became aware of the redevelopment process he was opposed to wholesale demo- lition and wanted to see efforts made at renovation, however, after spending years trying to run a business in downtown Anaheim and watching the problems in the downtown area become evident, he has become certain that the only way to save the downtown area is to rebuild it as a new center of the community. (7) Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva Avenue recalled that there were many citizen meetings with opportunity for input held at the library and Convention Center prior to the redirection effort and questioned why the people who are seeking a moratorium today did not make them- selves heard then. As an individual who has been actively involved in the redevelopment process, Mr. Brown urged that the Council make the decision to go forward with redevelopment otherwise, in his opin- ion, the center of the city would become the largest ghetto on the west coast. 78 -117 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - (1:00 P.M.) (8) Dave Collins stated that he represents owners and manages property in the downtown area which is just outside of the Phase I area of the project and commented that the tenants of these properties who depend on foot traffic for business are under severe hardship. He felt redevelopment should move forward as quickly as possible. "® (9) Bill Erickson, 301 E. North St. advised that he served 2 years on the Project Area Committee and noted that it is hard for him to understand a minority group now coming in and trying to stymie re- development efforts. He recalled that in the past the City Council has attempted some historic preservation at the request of citizens, specifically, the Frederick Little House, and was left "holding the bag ". (10) Elsie Reed, 914 Fairview stated that she could not under stand why these people have waited so long to make their views known. She noted that almost every community group with which she has been involved has been informed and shown the redevelopment plans. She agreed that there may be some buildings worth saving but felt that there are groups in the community working towards preservation. She stated that she is looking forward to the interesting changes beginning to take place in the downtown Anaheim area and cannot see any reason to hold these off. There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition to the request for moratorium on redevelopment, the Chairman opened the floor for questions from Agency members. In response to Councilman Roth, Mr. Priest explained that the reason the demolition of buildings appears to be taking place without a pattern is that the order in which buildings are acquired and tenants ar owners relocated is not constant due to the fact that the owner has the right to negotiation at his own pace. Once the structure be- comes vacant and fixtures are removed they become a serious invitation to crime and vandalism and the department attempts to have them demol- ished as quickly as possible. He added that properties are not'ac- quired by the Agency unless there is some specific private development or public improvement for that site, with the exception of some hard- ship cases. Mr. Priest extended an invitation to anyone interested in learning more about redevelopment to visit the offices of the Community Development Department, 4th Floor of the E1 Camino Bank Building. The Chairman disallowed the request made by Mr. Valenti that some time for rebuttal be permitted because some of the citizens who spoke 78 -118 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - (1:00 P.M.) in opposition to the request for moratorium were members of the Project Area Committee and Community Redevelopment Commission and suggested that Mr. Valenti look into the history and makeup of the Project Area Committee. Mr. Overholt requested that Mr. Priest respond in some detail to the question of the impact of a moratorium on Agency contractual obliga- tions and Mr. Priest described that the participation agreement with W & D Commercial Properties provides that the Agency acquire and clear land and convey same to them by April of 1979 and if a moratorium was established the Agency would not be able to continue land acquisition. Additionally the relocation of Anaheim Boulevard, Clementine Street and Lincoln Avenue are required to meet the needs of that development and the Agency could not go forward with these. The Agency could not continue in its relocation assistance efforts either. He voiced the opinion that a moratorium (1) may or may not cause developers to lose interest; (2) may or may not cause them to decide on another loca- tion; but will cause the project to lose credibility as well as the momentum now behind it. Chairman Seymour recalled that one of the results of the discussions on redirection some 2 years ago was the need indicated to identify the historical structures. As a result of that concern a citizens' committee was established to review the situation and recommend to the Agency members a contractor who would be charged with the respon- sibility of compiling a list of historical buildings. He requested an update as to who is currently serving on that committee and the status of their progress. Ms. Diann Marsh, who has been serving on that committee stated that it was created in January of this year, funded with monies from the second year community development block grant; they have received, they feel, three good proposals from four contractors, two wishing to work jointly, and will shortly conduct interviews. In response to additional questions from Chairman Seymour Ms. Marsh added that she has been in touch with, and the following people have visited the downtown area to review the buildings: Aaron Gallup, State Historian; William Padgett, County Cultural Director; John Meritt, Survey Coordinator of the State of California; and that her group has completed some other work which will be announced during the latter part of this month. Chairman Seymour pointed out that none of this information pertaining to the efforts toward preservation of historical buildings by Ms. Marsh's group had previously been provided the Agency members, that not even a copy of the correspondence going back and forth was pro- vided. He further summarized the events leading to the Agency des- ignating the old Carnegie Library (currently housing the City 78 -119 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - (1:00 P.M.) Personnel Department) as a historical building and appropriating $22,000 seed money towards restoration of that building to be used as a museum. He noted that he suspects these Redevelopment Agency efforts were not made known to the public who were asked to ..... sign the petitions in question. Ms. Marsh advised that she has been working with Kate Kocher of the Community Development Department who has been aware of all of this group's activity. She added that she has personally been dis- satisfied with the amount of time it has taken to get the preserva- tion project moving. Mrs. Kaywood questioned Ms. Marsh as to the makeup of the group with which she is working, and commented that she too, if she had read what was printed on the petition, would have signed it, but that the statement printed there is not true. She also noted that Ms. Marsh has lived in Anaheim for 2 years and could not believe she has a bigger stake in the historical preservation issue than some of Anaheim's pioneer families. At the conclusion of discussion, Chairman Seymour summarized that he did not feel it appropriate for the Agency to chastise or embarrass Ms. Marsh in her efforts, that he felt she was sincere and pointed out that the Agency is also empathetic to this cause; however, it is currently not clear which structures are of true and significant his- torical value. Once this has been determined with the aid of the consultant to be recommended by the Historical Building Preservation Committee, then the Agency can direct the Community Redevelopment Commission to review and recommend as to how the Redevelopment Plan should be revised to accommodate these structures. As far as the fiscal impacts of Proposition 13 which were brought up are concerned, Chairman Seymour stated that the hard facts will shortly be available from the County Assessor's Office which should clear up this controversy. MOTION: Chairman Seymour thereupon moved that the Redevelopment Project continue at current pace, and further that as soon as the County Assessor information is available, the Redevelopment Commission be instructed to bring to the Redevelopment Agency a detailed economic impact report showing the viability or nonviability of the current proposed Redevelopment Project; that, in fact the Committee on Preservation of Historic Buildings report to the Redevelopment Agency as soon as possible their recommendations as to an individual or individuals who are professional and capable of inventorying the City's historical buildings; and that consultant be asked to make recommendation on a list of historical buildings for preservation to the Community Redevelopment Commission who will in turn then 78 -120 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AUGUST 8, 1978 - (1:00 P.M.) make recommendations to the Agency on suggestions for possible amendments or changes to the Redevelopment Plan which would speak to this entire sense of historic preservation. Mr. Overholt seconded the motion. Prior to voting on the foregoing motion, the Chairman called for any comments from fellow Agency members and Mr. Kott voiced the opinion that it is the right of any citizen to petition their government for whatever reason without being badgered or insulted; that he inter- prets the comments made this date by those requesting a moratorium to really mean that they want the Agency to take a closer look at some additional historical preservation; that although private capital does put up the buildings in the redevelopment area, the people who develop these parcels buy the land from the Agency at a lower price than that which the Agency acquired it and he ultimately felt that this would be worth the expenditure of the tax increments; that although the tax increment does come from a specific geographic area, since that area still receives governmental services without funds coming out of it for those, everyone else must be paying that particular share. Mr. Priest stated that the latter remark would be correct only if you assume there is no new construction. Mr. Roth advised that although he has not always been in agreement with certain projects such as the Harbor Temporary Shopping Center and payments to school districts, he feels strongly that redevelop- ment in this city is well done by those responsible, i.e., the Community Development Department, the Agency, PAC and Community Redevelopment Commission, and would support the motion because he feels it is the only alternative. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth, Kott and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Kott moved to adjourn. Mr. Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 3:45 p.m. LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY