SJP invoked Code of Civil Procedure section 1260.110, subdivision (a) and challenged Agency's right to take.
The trial court therefore entered a 90-day order of possession prior to judgment. On April 17, 2002, the trial court determined that it appeared that Agency had the right to acquire the rights described in Agency's eminent domain complaint and found that Agency had deposited $3.691 million with the county clerk. SJP answered the complaint in eminent domain, objected to Agency's right to take, and alleged an abuse of discretion and failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Agency alleged that it had approved a resolution of necessity for acquisition of SJP's interest, and Agency's appraiser had established a fair market value for the interest of $3.747 million, which had been offered to SJP. According to Agency, SJP's interest was a real property interest for which a taking was authorized under state eminent domain law. Agency sought a judgment condemning SJP's interest in the downtown parking lot as established by the Agreement. On April 4, 2002, Agency filed a complaint in eminent domain against SJP. 5265 authorizing the condemnation of the Fountain Alley parcel. On April 2, 2002, the Agency Board of Directors adopted Resolution of Necessity No. The lawsuit sought a restraining order to stop Agency from negotiating with other developers for Fountain Alley's development and asked that Agency be ordered to negotiate with SJP for that development.Ī few days later, Agency served notice on SJP of its decision to appraise SJP's interest in Fountain Alley. In February 2001, after discovering Agency was negotiating with another developer, SJP filed suit against Agency. In January 2001, Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with a developer, Palladium, for the proposed mixed-use project. The report identified Fountain Alley as a key parcel in the redevelopment efforts, and included a recommendation to “einvent Fountain Alley as a gathering place and civic focus, using the new mixed-use project to integrate housing, retail space ․, and parking.” In June 2000, the Urban Land Institute, which was commissioned by Agency to study the redevelopment of the downtown San Jose area, issued its report. Paragraph 2.1 provides, in pertinent part: “This Agreement does not grant to SJP any real property interest in the Property, including, without limitation, any leasehold interest.” Under the second part of the Agreement, SJP was given the right to manage and operate the parking lot as a surface off-street parking facility and retain all revenues from the parking lot, subject to certain terms and conditions. Paragraph 1.1 of the Agreement states, in pertinent part: “It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties that this is a contract regarding development negotiations only and does not convey any interest in Property or a potential DDA or constitute any approval whatsoever of any proposed project.” In exchange, SJP was required to pay $25,000 per month for the first five years. Under the first part of the Agreement, SJP was granted an exclusive right to negotiate a disposition and development agreement for Fountain Alley for a 10-year period, unless terminated earlier as provided under the agreement. The agreement was titled the “Exclusive Negotiations and Operating Agreement” (Agreement). In 1997, SJP and Agency entered into an agreement relating to Fountain Alley. Because we conclude that SJP does not have a real property interest in the Fountain Alley parking lot, we will grant the request for writ relief.Īgency owns real property in downtown San Jose, commonly known as the Fountain Alley parking lot. (SJP) asks us to direct the trial court to vacate its order finding that Redevelopment Agency of San Jose (Agency) has the right to condemn SJP's interest in the Fountain Alley parking lot. In its petition for a writ of mandate, San Jose Parking, Inc. Deputy City Attorney, Attorney for Real Party in Interest City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency. Office of the City Attorney, Richard Doyle, City Attorney, George Rios, Assistant City Attorney, C. Brent Hawkins, Sacramento, Attorney for the Respondents, The Superior Court of Santa Clara County.
Matteoni, Peggy O'Laughlin, San Jose, Gerald Houlihan, Attorney for Petitioner, San Jose Parking, Inc. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency, Real Party in Interest. Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.