Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City
Filed 7/12/06 Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| WILSON & WILSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY COUNCIL OF REDWOOD CITY et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
A110341
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 418250) |
Appellants City Council of Redwood City, City of Redwood City and Redwood City Redevelopment Agency (hereafter collectively City), adopted an amendment to a redevelopment plan (plan amendment) that extended its eminent domain authority by six years. City appeals a judgment in favor of respondent Wilson & Wilson, a law partnership (hereafter Wilson), in its action for writ of mandate, declaratory relief and invalidation of the ordinance adopting the plan amendment. We conclude the trial court erroneously applied the futility doctrine to excuse Wilson's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies, and reverse.[1]
Factual Background
In 1982, City originally adopted a redevelopment plan and subsequently amended it three times (1985, 1990 and 1994). Prior to the plan amendment, City's eminent domain authority was to expire on January 18, 2002. In January 2001, City began the process of amending the redevelopment plan to extend this authority. City discussed the proposed plan amendment at numerous public meetings and prepared reports and other documents relating to the plan amendment's adoption. In July 2001, City adopted the plan amendment which extended its eminent domain authority for six years.
Wilson owns real property within the project area subject to City's eminent domain authority. In April 2001, Wilson objected to the plan amendment in a letter to the planning commission, arguing that the community redevelopment law (Health & Saf. Code, § 33333.2, subds. (a)(4) & (c))[2] authorized an extension of eminent domain authority only if the amendment also â€
