Transit agency sues property owner, tenants to seize San Jose sites near downtown BART stop

A transit agency has launched a legal process to officially seize ownership of key sites in downtown San Jose.

SAN JOSE — A transit agency has launched a legal process to officially seize ownership of key sites in downtown San Jose that are needed to construct and operate a future BART station.

The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is using a lawsuit and eminent domain proceeding to grab control of some downtown San Jose parcels whose buildings would have to be bulldozed and merchants displaced ahead of the development of an underground BART stop, papers filed with the Santa Clara County Superior Court show.

A retail, restaurant and residential building with addresses consisting of 91 and 97 E. Santa Clara St. in San Jose is the primary site that the VTA is attempting to seize, according to the court records.

The lawsuit that the VTA filed names several defendants: Property owner Goldrock Holdings and building tenants Mexico Bakery, 3rd and Bourbon restaurant and Enso Nightclub and Bar.

Miriam Jalil, a principal executive with Goldrock Holdings, the entity that owns the properties, said she was dismayed by the VTA’s actions and was caught unawares that the transit agency had formally lodged an eminent domain lawsuit against the ownership group and the merchants.

“They continue to pursue to condemn and destroy a legacy building that houses many long-term and small minority-owned businesses and tenants,” Jalil said of the VTA’s actions in connection with the 91 and 97 East Santa Clara Street building.

Rather than answer any questions directly, VTA spokesperson Bernice Alaniz referred this news organization to a blog post that it had issued previously to generally characterize its eminent domain process.

“We can appreciate the frustration that property owners associated with the project experience,” the VTA website post states. “VTA staff moves forward with recommendations to the VTA Board to authorize initiation of an eminent domain action only when agreement with a property owner cannot be reached.”

Jalil expressed concern that the VTA’s actions will oust both commercial merchants and residential tenants in the building.

The transit agency claims that the properties are needed for some key components of the future BART station that’s slated to appear beneath the intersection of First Street and Santa Clara Street. The train stop in question is the proposed Downtown San Jose BART station.

“The property sought to be acquired in this action is necessary in order to construct, operate and maintain the east ventilation and emergency access facilities for the Downtown San Jose station,” the VTA claims in the lawsuit.

But some of the tenants in the property said they believe that the emergency access and ventilation components could be built on the adjacent courtyard behind their sites.

“I have committed decades of my life to building and supporting this minority-owned business in this location in downtown San Jose,” Freddie Jackson, owner of the Enso nightclub, wrote in a letter to the VTA. “If VTA moves its emergency exit just a bit into the courtyard lot, we can save the entire building full of tenants.”

VTA officials, however, counter that moving the location of the emergency access and ventilation facilities for the BART station would require a brand-new environmental review that would add potentially one to two years to a project that’s already been considerably delayed.

The additional cost could be $200 million, Ron Golem, VTA’s director of real estate and transit-oriented development, had estimated previously.

Despite these assessments, Jalil disagrees with how the VTA is handling the situation.

“VTA’s process has been unfair,” Jalil said.