Adoption of a proposed amendment to the Central Core Redevelopment Plan (Also to City Council on 12/16/03) BMc

Brice McQueen, Redevelopment Manager, presented the staff report. He summarized the proposed amendments providing a background summary of the evolution of the Central Core Redevelopment Project and Redevelopment Law. He noted that the proposed amendment to the plan includes reinstating the power of eminent domain authority that expired in 1998. He noted the noticing efforts and public meetings conducted to discuss this proposed plan amendment. He stated that the Commission is to review whether the proposed plan amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and recommended adoption of this amendment to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff why the City wants to have this authority since the City has no authority since 1987. Staff responded that the eminent domain authority expired in 1998 and that it is an important tool for the Redevelopment Agency to have; however, there is no plan to use it at this time.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the City’s intention is to take private property for public use or hand it over to private developers. Staff responded that there is no intent of using this authority at this time. However, this is an important tool to have should there be a need to acquire a property to meet a specific development project. It requires 2/3 votes by the Redevelopment Agency.

Comm. Swegles confirmed with staff whether the action is a recommendation to Council that the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. Staff responded yes.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Joan Borger clarified that the Commission is required to adopt and recommend to City Council that the resolution for the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan.

Comm. Lee then asked staff should the Commission not recommend this resolution, could the City Council still adopt the resolution. Senior Assistant Joan Borger responded that should the Commission find that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the General Plan, then the Commission needs to state the non-conformities with the General Plan. The Commission is not being asked whether eminent domain authority should be reinstated.

Vice Chair Moylan then commented that the staff report should have cited the Findings and the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to test consistency with the General Plan. Senior Assistant City Attorney Borger responded that the action of the Commission is whether or not the resolution for the proposed amendment is consistent with the recently approved Downtown Specific Plan and amended General Plan. Ms. Ryan added that the action is to amend the Central Core Redevelopment Plan and that the amendments are to provide consistency with land uses with the recently adopted Downtown Specific Plan and the General Plan.

Vice Chair Moylan then asked what criteria to use to make this action or whether the action is simply a consistency with the recently adopted documents. Senior Assistant City Attorney Joan Borger responded that it is a pro forma action and that the Commission is being asked to look at the proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan with the changes to the recently adopted General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan

David Daniels, Jeffers, Mangels, Butler and Marmaro, representing Harvest Partners, one of the property owners within the redevelopment project area, stated that written documents were submitted to the Commission. He highlighted the concerns of his client being excluded in the redevelopment process. He has concerns about the noticing where the amendments were not clearly defined and how these amendments will affect the redevelopment plan. He cited the Redevelopment Law and he stated that his client has the right to participate in the redevelopment plan. He stated that there was no chart to show the existing and the proposed amendments to the plan, so they could analyze, comment and respond to the amendments. He added that he previously raised concerns about the city’s actions to the redevelopment plan area relative to CEQA regulations. He felt that these actions have significant effects to his client’s property rights, economic impact and public and financial perception towards his client’s property. He suggested getting interested parties to build consensus rather than unilaterally affecting property rights and excluding certain property owners from discussions.

Robert Paternoster, Director of Community Development, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, stated that the next step for the mall site is to bring all property owners together to achieve voluntary agreement where discussion is currently at a stalemate. He added that the eminent domain authority is to provide other alternatives to the Redevelopment Agency Board but certainly not the intention to exercise it at this time.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Paternoster should the action be adopted and becomes effective would it be used against a certain building. Mr. Paternoster responded that the Commission is not being asked to make a decision about exercising eminent domain authority which would be an action by the Redevelopment Agency Board. He added that the Commission’s action is to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan. He added that this is a tool that every Redevelopment Agency in the State has. Redevelopment Agencies have the power of eminent domain and tax increment financing. This proposed amendment is to position the Redevelopment Agency to have these tools as allowed by State Law and to accomplish a redevelopment project.

Vice Chair Moylan clarified with staff that it has been four years that this authority has expired and asked whether this authority has ever been used. Staff responded that it was used during the original development of the Town Center.

Vice Chair Moylan asked what type of properties were acquired. Staff responded that there were commercial and residential properties.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan commented that the proposed amendment specifies acquisition of properties where no one resides is basically new. Staff said yes and that the first adopted authority in 1975 did provide the power to acquire residential as well as commercial.

Paul Reed, Friends of Sunnyvale, expressed the group’s opinion that the exercise of eminent domain to be used by a third party is harmful. He added that there is no difference between commercial and residential properties since both have property rights. He noted that the group strongly supports the re-establishment of the street grid but only to use this tool for that purpose only and not for private redevelopment purposes.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the Commission could comment on the judgment of the action as to the legitimacy of eminent domain. Ms. Ryan responded that they could make comments and pass them on as a recommendation.

Chair Babcock also suggested that he could comment individually before the City Council.

Comm. Chu commented that eminent domain is a tool that most Redevelopment Agencies have and that it is appropriate to have at this time.

Comm. Swegles concurred with Comm. Chu.

Ms. Ryan clarified the motion and that the action is adoption of the resolution of the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Core Redevelopment Project.

Vice Chair Moylan did not support the motion. He agreed that it is a tool; however, this proposal is to be used as leverage for the City against the owners of the JC Penney building. He shared one of the speaker’s comments that to take one property to be given to another property owner is an abuse of government power, which is inconsistent with the General Plan and the City’s community values. He stated that he would like to have the Town Center redeveloped but he finds the spirit of the proposed amendment to be inconsistent with the General Plan.

Chair Babcock commented that she sees eminent domain authority as an insurance rather than a tool and that adoption of this resolution makes this tool available when needed and she hoped that it will never be used.

Comm. Simons supported the motion but expressed his concerns about the authority’s limitations and applications.