When Santa Clara County Superior Court moved into a downtown San Jose office building earlier this year, it appeared to be the end of a long ordeal. Officials took two years to find the spot to house some of its Family Court operations -- and then spent nearly $3 million to renovate the building.

Now court officials are facing the prospect of another move, because -- with little advance warning -- the San Jose Redevelopment Agency intends to acquire and tear down the courthouse to build a parking garage. This week, court and city officials are offering fresh details of how they found themselves in conflict, while detailing the possible multimillion-dollar public cost for the first time.

The Mercury News reported Saturday that the agency apparently was not aware that the Notre Dame Street property it decided last year to acquire for parking was in the process of being remodeled for the Superior Court. The report was based on interviews with the building's landlord and a redevelopment agency official.

But it appears now that some agency officials knew of the court's plans, yet never clearly communicated the agency's thoughts about the building. The county signed a lease on the 14,000-square-foot building last January, paid for renovations, and began operating it as a family court annex two months ago.

``My understanding was that any redevelopment was far out into the future,'' Superior Court Judge Jack Komar said Thursday. ``I'm not going to enter into a lease at a place I have to vacate in a year.''

Acquisition target

Redevelopment director Susan Shick said Thursday that she and agency employees knew a year ago that the court was proceeding to renovate and move into the site at 99 Notre Dame St. But she said it would have been inappropriate to dissuade the court even though the agency had long had desires to acquire the site.

Until the council approved a plan in November designating the site for a parking garage, it wasn't clear what would happen, Shick said.

``Downtowns are ongoing creations,'' Shick said. ``You can't stop someone else's program unless you have a very concrete plan.''

The property, near Highway 87 and Santa Clara Street, is owned by Barry Swenson Builders. It is one of five locations for downtown garages approved by the city council in November.

Where the agency and the court appear to disagree is on how much the agency said about its plans.

Shick said she had conversations with court representatives more than a year ago, when the agency was still considering whether it would rather put housing or parking on the site. ``What I told the court is we couldn't for sure say we were going to do housing or parking,'' Shick said. ``We understood they needed to make a decision; they have an operation to run.''

She said she suggested the court, which faces a shortage of space, move ahead.

``If we had to acquire it, we obviously would relocate them,'' Shick said.

Komar, who led Superior Court's search for more space, said court and agency officials discussed the Notre Dame Street building only briefly, in the context of a larger exchange about the court's needs downtown. The agency was never explicit about the possibility it would take over the building in the near future, he said. The court signed a seven-year lease, which expires in 2008.

``I don't think anything we heard indicated there would be anything happening within five years,'' Komar said.

Shick said Thursday that the court would probably have to move within a year to make way for the parking garage.

Agency's plans

Komar said that court officials learned about the agency's plans in late December, well after the court signed a lease. The news came from Swenson, he said, not the redevelopment agency, and by then it was too late for the court to back out.

According to Superior Court Chief Executive Officer Kiri Torre, the county spent $2.7 million renovating the building for the courthouse -- money that would be lost if the city acquires the site for a parking garage.

Komar said the court would not try to block the agency's plans for a parking garage.

``We're just trying to provide a service for the public,'' he said. ``To the extent we can provide it another place, that's fine.''