Council Presses Reforms of Redevelopment Agency : Government: Members vote to give elected officials, public greater control over decisions and expenditures.

The Los Angeles City Council, after heated discussion Tuesday, backed extensive reforms designed to give the public and elected officials a more direct say in the activities of the beleaguered Community Redevelopment Agency.

The council’s action followed blistering attacks by local lawmakers and homeowner groups on the agency’s secret approval last December of a severance package totaling more than $1.5 million for outgoing administrator John Tuite.

Councilwoman Gloria Molina and Council President John Ferraro, sponsors of the reforms adopted by an 11-2 vote, predicted that redevelopment will more closely follow the desires of citizens and the pressing needs of the poor, with far less emphasis on building skyscrapers and luxury housing.

“What we are dealing with is the most resistant, arrogant city agency,” Molina said of the CRA. “They are not going to pull their sneaky kinds of deals anymore.”

Under the new policy, City Atty. James Hahn will be the CRA’s general counsel, while City Controller Rick Tuttle will approve the agency’s expenditures. The City Council will be empowered to reject a wide range of agency decisions and, by a two-thirds vote, remove any of the seven commissioners appointed by the mayor to oversee the CRA.

The reforms face a final approval by the council next week.

Under the old system, Hahn, Tuttle and the City Council were unable to challenge scores of controversial decisions by the powerful agency, including Tuite’s buyout. Under the changes, any of those elected entities could challenge an agency decision.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said major redevelopment projects that are already under way--in Hollywood, Chinatown and downtown--will move ahead and not undergo any dramatic changes.

But, he said, huge projects expected in Watts, Venice, downtown’s Union Station area and the San Fernando Valley will be directly affected by the new policies.

He predicted a dramatic shift in the way these projects are designed, placing a new emphasis on community desires and on helping the disadvantaged.

“This is a great step toward accountability,” Yaroslavsky said. “If our political will matches our political rhetoric, you will see a whole new ballgame.”

Council members Michael Woo and Ruth Galanter were the two dissenters. Councilman Richard Alatorre, a longtime CRA ally who co-sponsored the Ferraro-Molina initiative, left council chambers minutes before the vote. He could not be reached for comment on his absence.

Both Woo and Galanter argued that the city attorney and controller may not be able to review and approve documents quickly enough to safeguard critical projects--such as affordable housing--that face strict deadlines to qualify for bank financing.

However, Hahn and Tuttle assured the council that with expected staff expansions paid for by the CRA, their oversight would add only a few days to the bureaucratic process.

The council’s action marked a defeat for Mayor Tom Bradley.

While officially backing the reforms reached by Ferraro and the chief legislative analyst’s office, Bradley was widely known to have lobbied behind the scenes for amendments by Woo that would have wiped out most of the key measures adopted Tuesday.

City Hall sources said Bradley wanted to squelch the reforms because they had been toughened up by Molina and Alatorre after the mayor gave them his support.

At one point, a furious Yaroslavsky boomed into his microphone: “The mayor is phoning council members on the floor right now, trying to water this down! Why the hell is this happening? What’s going on here? What’s the story?”

Ferraro pointedly commented that after he worked diligently on reforms acceptable to Bradley and received the mayor’s blessings, Bradley’s aides “cut a different arrangement with Woo’s office.”

Ferraro said, “I am tired of these kinds of charades.”

Council members were so angry that they voted 7 to 6 in favor of a Yaroslavsky proposal to seize total control of the CRA--one short of the eight votes needed. That action compares to a 3-11 vote last July against the same motion.

Bill Chandler, a spokesman for the mayor, acknowledged that Bradley supported Woo’s amendments, which would have granted far less authority to the city attorney and controller. However, Chandler said, many reforms adopted Tuesday were enthusiastically backed by Bradley.

He said Bradley will review the reforms, “particularly to determine whether it will permit the expediting of affordable housing.”

The vote was seen by several council members as a defeat for Woo, who has increasingly acted as a staunch supporter of the CRA. The agency is overseeing the massive Hollywood Redevelopment Project in his district.

Woo was lambasted by council members Marvin Braude, Nate Holden, Yaroslavsky and Molina, who accused him of attempting to “gut” the reforms.

Braude, shaking his finger, turned to Woo and called his amendments “totally without merit,” adding: “The CRA is not here for a special purpose. It’s the very destiny of this city.”

One of the most tangible outcomes of the council vote will be the end of a long and controversial relationship between the CRA and its private attorney, Murray Kane.

According to city officials, Kane’s firm receives nearly $4 million a year to represent the CRA. But despite the huge expenditure of public funds, Kane has not undergone the competitive bidding process in 10 years.

Under the new policy, Hahn will become the agency’s counsel--as he is for other city departments--and specialty firms such as Kane’s will be hired only after competitive bidding.

Yaroslavsky and Molina noted that Kane was present during the December meeting at which the Community Redevelopment Agency Commission voted to award Tuite his $1.5-million severance package to walk away from his job of 4 1/2 years.

The buyout amount is believed to be unprecedented among city redevelopment agencies in the United States.

“During that meeting,” Molina said, “Murray Kane wasn’t answering to the public.”

Kane could not be reached for comment.