From: Valeria Bentorkia-Moran
To: Clerk; Nora Pimentel
Cc: Emily Lowther Brough; Elizabeth Elliott; Daniel Sobczak; Rebecca Bustos; Lesley Xavier; [email protected]
Subject: Re: August 19, 2025 City Council Meeting | Property Address: 3508-3350 Bassett Street, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:26:40 AM
Attachments: image001.png
HGIT objection to SCCC RON 8.19.25.pdf
Dear Santa Clara City Council Members,
Please find the attached document regarding the above-referenced matter.
Kind regards,
Valeria Bentorkia-Moran
Legal Administrative Assistant
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950
San Francisco, CA 94104
t 415-956-8100
f 415-288-9755
Please see our website for information about our
East Bay and Monterey office locations.
Please Note Our New San Francisco Address.
This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Receipt by anyone else does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review by or disclosure to another is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please delete all copies and notify me.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ San Francisco|180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950 San Francisco, CA 94104 • Tel: (415)956-8100 • Fax (415)288-9755 Oakland|1970 Broadway, Suite 1270, Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: (510)469-0555 Soquel|2805 Porter Street, Soquel, CA 95073 • Tel: (831)309-4010 (Please respond to San Francisco Office) | www.zfplaw.com
August 19, 2025
Santa Clara City Council
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected]
Via Electronic Mail
Re: August 19, 2025 City Council Meeting
Item 5: Action on a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Real Property Interests for purposes of implementing 115kV Transmission Line Project Property Address: 3508-3550 Bassett Street, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Dear Santa Clara City Council Members:
My office represents HGIT Bassett Campus, LP (“Owner”), Owner of 3508-3550 Bassett Street, Santa Clara, CA (“Property”), the P roperty at issue in the above -referenced matter. This letter outlines Owner’s objections regarding the City of Santa Clara and Silicon Valley Power ’s proposed condemnation of an interest in the Property, by way of an overhead electric easement (“Electric Project”).
In order to acquire an intended interest in real property, a condemnor must first adopt a resolution of necessity in conformance with Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 1240.030. The City has given its notice of intent to adopt a resolution of necessity for the Property on August 19, 2025, however, the City cannot meet the applicable legal standard. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 1240.030 requires the following elements to be met prior to exercising the power of eminent domain:
(1) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. (2) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
(3) The property described in the resolution is necessary for the proposed project.
The City fails to meet any of these standards. The Property is not necessary for the Electric Project, nor is the Electric Project in the “public interest and necessity” or planned in a manner that will be compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. (See, e.g. Robinson v. Superior Ct. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1170 [ facts failed to justify the need for an easement for transmission Lines over condemnee’s property] ; San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Lux Land Co. (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 472, 480 [no evidence of present plans to use easement for transmission lines].)
August 19, 2025
In addition, it is virtually impossible for Owner to identify with precision the portion of the Property the City seeks to condemn, as the Electric Project’s description in Silicon Valley Power’s deficient offer of compensation is lacking in detail and labeled “preliminary” and “not precise.” As I am sure the City is aware, it has a legal duty to adequately describe the Electric Project prior to moving forward with condemnation. ( City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93, 108, 114-115.)
Finally, S ilicon Valley Power ’s precondemnation offer to Owner fails to comply with the “mandatory” requirements per Gov. Code section 7267.2, in that the summary basis for the alleged value is inadequate, and in any event wholly deficient and undervalued. (see, e.g., City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1012.) For these reasons and those to be presented at the hearing, Owner respectfully requests the City Council decline to adopt the resolution of necessity for the Property.
Very truly yours,
ZACKS & FREEDMAN, PC
_________________________
Emily L. Brough
cc: Client