The lawsuit — filed this month in Santa Clara County Superior Court — states that Dragutin J. Sbragia-Zoricic has failed to abate the blight and code violations at a vacant, dilapidated home he owns at 205 Wabash Ave. in San Jose. It further alleges that he has neglected to pay more than $22,000 in fines and fees levied against him by the city.

San Jose is asking a judge to order Sbragia-Zoricic to clean up his property, which sorely stands out from the neatly-kept homes around it, and to provide the city with the thousands of dollars it is owed.

Sbragia-Zoricic — a longtime licensed tax attorney located in Oakland — has owned the home since 2009, according to the lawsuit. But neighbors in the quiet neighborhood said the home has been vacant that whole time.

The property is situated on the edge of San Jose’s historic Rose Garden and Burbank neighborhoods. It’s located a block away from Abraham Lincoln High School, a half-mile away from the beloved Municipal Rose Garden and about a mile from the popular Westfield Valley Fair mall.

According to the lawsuit, San Jose code enforcement officers initially declared the home vacant and neglected in June 2015 and have issued more than a dozen administrative citations to Sbragia-Zoricic over the span of more than six years.

“The substandard conditions at the property substantially endanger the health and safety of homes adjacent to, or nearby, the property as well as the general public,” the lawsuit states.

City spokesperson Demetria Machado said the city rarely takes such legal action against property owners. In most cases, code enforcement officers aim to remedy code violations through voluntary compliance and by using other enforcement tools like warning notices and citations.

“The City’s goal is compliance and remediation of the Code issues, and sometimes a lawsuit is necessary to obtain the compliance,” Machado wrote in an email, adding that the complaint will pave the way for the city to take further action like pursuing receivership if needed.

When reached by phone, Sbragia-Zoricic said he had not yet been made aware of the lawsuit and therefore had no comment.

“Until I figure out what’s going on, I have no comment at all,” he said. “I’m not going to get into anything right now.”

In June 2021, a two-alarm fire broke out on the property, engulfing the home and a smaller dwelling in the backyard, according to city records. The cause of the fire was undetermined despite an investigation by San Jose fire officials.

Joseph David, 20, who lives next door to the property, said firefighters had to break down a fence in his family’s backyard and a gate on their driveway in order to put out the flames.

“I don’t know who owns the land but I know no one has been taking care of it,” David said.

After the 2021 fire, David said, a fence was put up around the property. But before then, he would see squatters going in and out of the abandoned home.

“Before the fence was put up, you could see a mattress in there, food containers, medicine bottles and stuff like that, so there were definitely some homeless people living in there,” he said.

Krista Giovannoni, who lives down the street from the property, said she’s disappointed the owner hasn’t attempted to clean it up over the years.

“It’s just such a beautiful, great neighborhood,” she said, “and to see this dilapidated house on the corner, it really just brings down the tone for the rest of the area.”

This is not the first example of San Jose’s code enforcement officers struggling to get owners to address serious code violations on their properties. In April, a 64-year-old man was killed in a three-alarm blaze that broke out at an East San Jose home that was the subject of more than a half dozen code enforcement cases dating back to 2004.

Nearly a year before the fire, San Jose’s code enforcement department deemed the property at 1028 Wilsham Drive “unsafe to occupy” because of substandard housing conditions that included structural hazards and a lack of electricity and lighting. But less than two months before the blaze, code enforcement officers still found people living inside the home, which had been fenced off, and instructed them to vacate.

Some neighbors on Wilsham Drive blamed city officials for failing to do more to address the blighted and hazardous conditions.

[bloom type=”map” height=”300″ zoom=”close”]

A change in zoning regulations and termination of its previous lease had threatened the future of the iconic, longstanding farm stand. But thanks to a new arrangement with the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, the beloved South Bay destination will begin welcoming visitors again next month just a quarter-mile south of its previous location.

“Spina Farms is a part of the historical and cultural picture of Coyote Valley. It’s a place that has touched the hearts of many generations of people who identify with the valley of the heart’s delight — and the thought of that disappearing was unconscionable,” said Andrea Mackenzie, general manager of the Open Space Authority.

Spina Farms was established by John and Linda Spina in the 1940s in Coyote Valley, a largely undeveloped expanse used for farming, wildlife linkages and recreational activities like hiking and biking. Over the past decade, the fruit stand and pumpkin patch have changed hands several times, most recently with business partners Gary Tognetti and Paul Mirassou purchasing it in 2019.

Late last year, the San Jose City Council unanimously approved a series of land-use changes aimed at indefinitely protecting the bulk of North and Mid-Coyote Valley from major development. Following that move, the owners of the land where Spina Farms had been located for decades — at the intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and Bailey Avenue — informed the operators of the farm stand and pumpkin patch that its lease would not be extended.

The fruit stand has been closed since the end of last year and, since then, Tognetti said he’s been receiving “nothing but phone calls from folks asking when it’s going to reopen.”

Tognetti and Mirassou initially considered moving the operation to Gilroy but didn’t want to lose its roots in the valley.

Under a new lease signed with the Open Space Authority, which aims to conserve the valley’s open agricultural lands, the Spina Farms Fruit Stand is set to open in July near the intersection of Laguna Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard. The annual Spina Farms Pumpkin Patch is scheduled to take place from Sept. 26 through Nov. 6 at the same 60-acre property, which will allow the operators to double the size of the pumpkin patch and corn maze this fall.

“I’m really happy to work with Open Space,” Tognetti said. “What they’re working for are the same goals that I have — preserving agriculture and the land and keeping farming alive.”

The Open Space Authority — in partnership with the State of California Department of Conservation, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara County Planning Department —  purchased the 60 acres of farmland from WP Investments, LLC. for $3 million in October 2021. The Authority’s goal with the acquisition was to establish sustainable, local climate-friendly agricultural practices within Coyote Valley.

Organizations focused on preserving Coyote Valley’s undeveloped land, including the Open Space Authority and the Palo Alto-based nonprofit Peninsula Open Space Trust, say it’s imperative to safeguard the region’s water quality and wildlife, increase recreational opportunities for the community and support small farmers.

Coyote Valley, which spans a total of 7,400 acres, is the last remaining open valley floor in the Bay Area for wildlife to migrate between the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range, and it naturally allows stormwater to seep into the groundwater table below instead of rushing down Coyote Creek and inundating downtown San Jose neighborhoods, as it did during the major floods of 2017.

In terms of this 60-acre undeveloped Coyote Valley property, Spina Farms will have access to the full 60 acres through the end of 2022 and then reduce its operations to 40 acres to allow other farmers an opportunity to lease the remaining land.

“This, in many ways, is a foundation for us to build on and to encourage new and beginning farmers to come into Coyote Valley and have this become a sustainable, agricultural landscape that the public can be a part of,” Mackenzie said. “It’s so important to have this treasured landscape for future generations and we’re really excited about the possibilities.”

But a new settlement agreement approved by San Jose and the City of Santa Clara this week marks a critical step toward finally unlocking the potential construction of tens of thousands of new units in North San Jose in the coming years.

In an agreement unanimously approved by the San Jose City Council, San Jose is set to invest $38.5 million in transportation improvements aimed at reducing congestion in North San Jose and its neighboring communities, including the Montague Expressway/I-880 interchange and widening of Montague Expressway to eight lanes from North First Street to Lick Mill Boulevard. In exchange, the city of Santa Clara has agreed not to sue San Jose as it builds up the area.

“We’re very happy that the council and city of Santa Clara have become a partner in solving the housing issues in our region,” said San Jose councilman David Cohen, who represents North San Jose. “It’s a great milestone to have that behind us.”

In a letter to San Jose leaders, Santa Clara Assistant City Manager Manuel Pineda said the city was “extremely supportive” of boosting the county’s housing stock and that it has “worked diligently with San Jose” to help it achieve its housing goals.

“Santa Clara has always been and continues to be committed to providing transportation infrastructure that supports new housing in Santa Clara, San Jose and the county,” he wrote.

The deal culminates nearly two decades of legal battles between the two cities — a breakthrough celebrated by elected officials on both sides. Even so, it has not quelled everyone’s concerns.

Although the settlement was intended to be a three-party agreement with San Jose and both the city of Santa Clara and the county, Santa Clara County officials have not signed off on it.

Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams said the county is “not interested in a check” and instead wants to see the completion of projects that San Jose promised to carry out years ago but are still outstanding, including the construction of a flyover at Trimble Road and Montague Expressway.

“Our expectation is simple — it’s that the city made a promise in a legally binding settlement in 2006 and it needs to keep that promise,” Williams said. “Our concern here is truly specific to ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to ensure that people who then come to live in North San Jose can get to where they need to go — and that is something that all public entities should care about.”

North San Jose, which officials define as the general area between Highways 237, 101 and 880, has long been viewed as an optimal part of the city to focus its growth. The area —  situated along the Valley Transportation Authority light rail — is the city’s largest employment district and has a sizeable amount of vacant and underutilized industrial land ripe for conversion into housing and office space.

In 2005, the city adopted the North San Jose Development Policy, which sought to add 26.7 million square feet of new office and industrial development, 32,000 housing units, 2.7 million square feet of retail and commercial space and 1,000 hotel rooms in the area.

Milpitas, Santa Clara and Santa Clara County sued San Jose shortly after, arguing that the city had failed to account for the traffic issues that such significant increased development would create for neighborhoods surrounding the North San Jose boundaries. An initial settlement deal reached in 2006 forced San Jose to divide up its development plan into four phases, capping developers in each phase to roughly 8,000 new housing units for every 7 million square feet of new commercial space built. San Jose was also required to make specific transportation improvements like widening Montague Expressway and improving Highway 101 interchanges.

While developers quickly claimed the first 8,000 housing units, the policy’s approach prevented the city from moving forward with more housing until the commercial space cap was reached — a threshold that the city still has yet to hit.

The move by San Jose leaders this week not only spells out the city’s funding contributions to transportation improvements but also eliminates the North San Jose Development Policy, freeing the city of building caps and restrictions that tied housing construction to commercial development.

Mayor Sam Liccardo said in an interview Thursday that the city had made “a great step forward” toward building critically needed housing. However, he added, “all of this is for naught if the county of Santa Clara ultimately decides it wants to litigate instead.”

In a letter to San Jose leaders, Williams threatened legal action but added that it was not the county’s preferred course of action.

Councilman Matt Mahan called the county’s response “disheartening and frustrating” and urged the city and county to expedite their negotiations.

“In the midst of a housing crisis and rising homelessness, I think it’s critical that we commit to getting to a resolution and recognize that not everyone is going to get everything that they want, including us,” Mahan said. “… Because if the county is threatening to sue, that creates an environment for too much uncertainty for anyone to move a project forward.”

Developers are already lining up to get approvals for new housing developments in North San Jose, including SummerHill Homes’ proposal to transform an old office building into 329 residential units at 210 Baypointe Parkway and Charities Housing eying a 440-unit affordable housing community at 71 Vista Montana for families and people at risk of homeless.

The city’s original plan for North San Jose set a goal that 20% of housing units built would be affordable, but the initial 8,000 were entirely market-rate. Still, San Jose leaders said this week that they planned to uphold that commitment.

“This area represents the valley’s greatest opportunity to move the needle on our affordability crisis,” Liccardo said.

In one message, the mayor inquired on whether VTA officials could ask the Federal Transit Administration to strike the new price estimate from a news release.

When confronted this week about the text conversations, Liccardo – a chief proponent of the extension’s design – said the secrecy was necessary to save the taxpayers money. He told the Bay Area News Group that he will now ask for an independent review of the project’s controversial single bore tunnel design to ensure public confidence.

Liccardo’s announcement marks a reversal after months of pushing back against a growing chorus of transit advocates who worry the tunnel design is forcing costs higher and will ultimately inconvenience riders. But questions remain over how the VTA will implement a good-faith review of the long-delayed project while it continues marching forward with the current design, as Liccardo says it plans to do.

The six-mile, four-station BART extension through downtown San Jose, which will be managed by the Valley Transportation Authority, will be the largest infrastructure project in Santa Clara County history. And the latest revelations provide a window into the thorny balance officials must strike between providing taxpayers with price transparency while negotiating contracts, seeking additional state funding, and fending off criticism from transit advocates.

In multiple text exchanges, obtained by the Bay Area News Group in a public records request, officials urged one another to conceal a Federal Transit Administration analysis of the BART project that pegged the likely cost at $9.1 billion – a $2.25 billion increase over the current budget – and projected that the downtown extension’s opening could slip to as late as June 2034.

“We need to be very ‘silent’ about our budget issues,” VTA’s Takis Salpeas, who is overseeing the BART extension, told Liccardo in an October text message, referring to the FTA’s estimate. Salpeas told Liccardo in a text that he feared contractors bidding on the project would inflate their costs if they knew of the higher price tag.

“As you know, we have 9 major construction teams shortlisted . . . They [sic] listening to everything!! I know you know,” Salpeas added.

A week later, the FTA announced its higher cost projection in a news release, which prompted Liccardo to plead that it be removed from the announcement.

“I’m sure you caught the part in the federal announcement where they assert the project cost ‘is expected to be $9.148 billion.’ Can we ask them to revise that language??” he texted Salpeas and VTA’s General Manager Carolyn Gonot. But the language was not changed.

Meanwhile, the VTA did not acknowledge the federal cost estimate and initially denied a Public Records Act request from this news organization for a federal assessment that explained the new price tag and extended timeline.

After months of downplaying the federal cost assessment, the VTA earlier this month said it may be short by up to $1.66 billion in needed project funds and indicated that the agency is scrambling to identify new state and federal sources to fill the gap. The agency said the rising cost of supplies and labor is driving up the price but it remains adamant that the final cost will come in lower than the federal projection.

In an interview this week, Liccardo defended his actions to conceal the higher price estimate as an effort to “protect taxpayer dollars.”

“We were trying to ensure we can get a project built without giving hundreds of millions of dollars more of taxpayer money to contractors,” he said. “So in other words, it was a tightrope in trying to elicit more state and federal resources for the project without telling contractors that there’s more money in the pot for them to go grab.”

In an interview Tuesday, Salpeas said he is “the guard of the public money” and revealing higher costs “on the street” hampers his ability to negotiate. “If I had to do it all over again, I would say the same message,” he added.

Yet John Pelissero, senior scholar at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, said the messages could “undermine the public’s trust and confidence” in government.

“The fact that the federal government had a number and they shared it with the local officials in the valley and they were not willing to put this out in the public appears to be an attempt to be less than transparent, and that’s never a good strategy for public officials,” Pelissero said.

In the face of growing criticism, the mayor plans to present a memo at Thursday’s VTA board meeting that will seek an independent review of the project’s tunnel and station designs – marking a major victory for transit advocates who have long been pushing officials to reevaluate the project’s design.

In 2018, the VTA and BART boards chose to dig one of the world’s largest subway tunnels with a single bore instead of a more conventional twin bore design that would require tearing up large sections of Santa Clara Street. Critics argue that the single bore design compromises the long-term experience of riders by requiring passengers to descend nearly 90 feet to get from the street to their trains and failing to provide access points on the south side of Santa Clara Street.

For more than a year, text messages reveal that the mayor – who has also publicly voiced concerns about the station designs – has been profoundly worried that he may lose local support for the project as local agencies seek new sources of funding.

In a November 2021 text, referring to an influential public policy think tank, Liccardo wrote: “Ok. I just think we have to publicly wrestle with the parade of ‘better ideas’ that advocates like SPUR insist that we’re not heeding. I don’t want to deal with the political headwinds of having local advocacy organizations against us.”

It’s unclear who will conduct the new analysis or how long it will take. However, Laura Tolkoff, a transportation policy director for SPUR, praised the mayor, saying the extensive back and forth with VTA officials showed a “genuine effort to improve the project.”

“I think Mayor Liccardo knows that getting BART Phase II (to downtown San Jose) right, is as important as getting this project done,” said Tolkoff.

Scott Knies, executive director of the Downtown Business Association, was one of the most vocal proponents of the single bore design back in 2018 when transit officials were choosing between the two. Today, however, Knies said he is open to additional analysis in order to convince residents and taxpayers that they are getting the best project.

“I think a lot needs to come out in this study for a change in direction,” he said. “I don’t anticipate that. I see it as a reassurance that we’ve made the right decision four years ago.”

What do you think we should be investigating? Submit your tips below. 

During a special meeting of the VTA board on Friday, Gregg Richardson, the agency’s chief financial officer, said the VTA plans to spend the coming months looking for ways to fill the funding gap to reach the federal government’s latest cost estimate for the project of $9.15 billion.

“That’s not to say that we believe that’s what the cost will be — but that’s the ceiling,” Richardson said. “If we can fund that, then we feel confident the rest of the project can work.”

The VTA needs to show the federal government by October 2023 that it can line up an additional $1.66 billion — likely from other state and federal resources — or it risks losing the $2.3 billion commitment for the project made last year by federal transit officials.

The latest setback for the highly-anticipated BART project comes after the VTA spent months downplaying an analysis from the Federal Transit Administration, first reported by the Bay Area News Group, that said the cost of the project could soar and construction could take until 2034 to complete. The official VTA budget for the project still stands at $6.9 billion with a 2030 completion date.

But VTA spokesperson Bernice Alaniz said the agency now acknowledges the rising costs of commodities and labor are driving up the price tag.

“It’s just the way the current environment is going and observing other mega projects,” she said. “We’re going to plan for and prepare for that ceiling and do whatever we can to bring that down.”

The new financial concerns are in addition to more immediate budget problems already hamstringing the agency, which is relying on federal COVID relief money to balance its budget for South Bay light-rail and bus service.

VTA officials said Friday that the agency is also forecasting trouble in paying BART to operate the current leg of the extension that is running into Santa Clara County through Milpitas and Berryessa in North San Jose.

VTA currently relies on a 2008 voter-approved sales tax to pay the majority of BART’s operating costs, but those funds are projected to be insufficient to cover the expenses. Alaniz said the agency is looking to move money from other parts of its budget to make up the gap, though she would not provide an estimate for the shortfall nor an expected date for when BART’s operating costs will outstrip the sales tax funds. Last year, VTA paid BART $37 million.

The funding shortfall raises questions about how VTA will afford the future costs to operate the six-mile, four-station BART extension. The current BART stations in Santa Clara County opened during the pandemic and have struggled to attract riders — ridership was only 13% of pre-pandemic projections in March.

Alaniz said the agency is eyeing California’s booming budget surplus along with other federal money. But there is competition for those funds, which will be targeted by other transit agencies around the state and country. Alaniz said there are no plans at the moment to seek additional money from Santa Clara County taxpayers.

The BART to Silicon Valley plan, managed by the VTA, is slated to be the largest infrastructure project in Santa Clara County history. The project was approved by nearly 71% of Santa Clara County voters in 2000. Voters have approved two sales tax measures that together will provide about $4 billion for the extension.

Despite the support for the project, the extension’s underground tunnel design has sparked some controversy. The VTA and BART boards have chosen to use a single-bore technology, which has never been used to mine a subway tunnel in the United States, in order to minimize disruptions at the street level downtown that a more conventional, twin-bore tunneling method would require.

The Federal Transit Authority announced in October 2021 that it intended to funnel up to $2.3 billion of transit funds into the extension, or a quarter of the final project cost, whichever is less. President Joe Biden’s proposed budget released earlier this month earmarks $200 million of the total federal funding.

Before providing VTA with the full funding, the federal government gave the agency two years to issue contract bids, determine the project’s final price tag and complete a revised funding plan.

“There is a time constraint on the letter of intent, but we’re working toward making sure that all of that will be complete,” Richardson said.

Jason Baker, a vice president at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business association that has spearheaded transit funding ballot measures, said that the VTA should not be faulted for its rising cost estimates.

“Projects like this are, are big and they’re hard,” Baker said. “And they come with a certain level of uncertainty built-in.”

But not everyone is as understanding.

“It’s a good first step toward maybe changing the expectations of stakeholders,” said Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design. “But the courageous thing to do now is to rethink the design of the project so that you don’t suck money out of every other important transit project in the region and state.”

Earlier this month, the 49ers and the DeBartolo Corporation, which owns the football team that plays at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, created the Citizens for Cindy Chavez, Mayor 2022 political action committee. 49ers spokesman Rahul Chandok, who confirmed the team’s initial donation to the committee, said in a statement the team and its executives were proud to support Chavez as the “first Latina Mayor of San Jose.”

In addition, he said, “Supervisor Chavez demonstrated exemplary leadership during the pandemic and was instrumental in launching California’s largest vaccination site at Levi’s Stadium last year. As an organization with roots that extend to San Jose and beyond, we’re supporting Supervisor Chavez because we’re confident she will take action on the South Bay’s most pressing issues such as housing affordability and public safety.”

This isn’t the first time the 49ers have engaged in the local political scene. In 2020, the team spent more than $300,000 toward a campaign to defeat a Santa Clara ballot initiative that sought to change the way City Council members are elected.  Chandok said then the measure was meant to “disenfranchise minority communities and strip them of equal representation in our local government.”

Later that year, 49ers owner Jed York poured $3 million into a political action committee named Citizens for Efficient Government and Full Voting Rights that backed the campaigns of four political newcomers to the Santa Clara City Council. Three of them were elected, turning the council majority from one that was antagonistic toward the team to one that’s now more aligned.

Critics of the team accused York of trying to buy votes, and Mayor Lisa Gillmor, who has frequently butted heads with the 49ers, called the move “obscene.” The new council majority later went on to fire city manager Deanna Santana, a Gillmor ally who also had crossed the 49ers over management of Levi’s Stadium.

In her bid to succeed Sam Liccardo as San Jose’s next mayor, Chavez faces six other candidates in the June 7 primary election. Three are San Jose City Council members Dev Davis, Matt Mahan and Raul Peralez, and the others are retired San Jose police officer Jim Spence and college students Marshall Woodmansee and Travis Nicholas Hill.

Initial campaign finance reports filed in January revealed that Chavez, a Santa Clara County supervisor and former labor leader, had raised $479,346 in direct campaign contributions.

But even more money has been raised on behalf of Chavez’s mayoral run by a handful of independent expenditure committees — groups that typically are funded by labor unions, business leaders or large corporations. Unlike candidates’ own fundraising efforts, the committees are not restricted to contribution limits. San Jose limits individual contributions to mayoral candidates’ direct campaigns to $1,400.

Mahan, a former tech entrepreneur, was an early fundraising frontrunner, amassing $504,169 in the first month. He is expected to be endorsed and receive substantial fundraising assistance from a political action committee formed by Liccardo called Common Good Silicon Valley.

Even before creating a fundraising committee on Chavez’s behalf, York and 49ers President Al Guido endorsed her for mayor, and a dozen 49ers employees donated a total of $12,050 directly to Chavez’s campaign.

Sam Singer, a San Francisco-based political consultant, called the team’s contribution toward Chavez’s campaign a “very smart investment that will pay them dividends for many years to come.” Singer previously did consulting work for both the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara on stadium-related issues.

“The 49ers made a significant investment by building a stadium in Santa Clara, but it’s really a regional stadium and a regional business,” he said. “Anytime you have a major stadium, which houses a storied NFL franchise and also is home to concerts and special events, there’s the opportunity for major conventions, hotels, taxes, transportation and housing issues.

“The 49ers are making an investment in their future — not just in Santa Clara but in San Jose — in order to have access to smart and capable elected officials who can help them navigate the issues as well as future investments,” he continued.

But the 49ers’ move caught San Jose State University political science professor Terry Christensen by surprise.

“I don’t know why they’d have a $300,000 interest in the outcome of this race,” he said. “You get that they’d like a big-city mayor to be their cheerleader, and you get that the mayor of Santa Clara is not that, but I don’t know why they need Cindy.”

The 49ers’ new fundraising committee is one of at least five special interest groups expected to dole out substantial amounts of money on Chavez’s behalf.

Longtime business leader and Bloom Energy executive Carl Guardino formed a political action committee in February called San Jose Together, supporting Cindy Chavez for Mayor 2022. Service Employees International Union Local 521, a labor union that represents thousands of workers in the Bay Area, has contributed $75,000 to that committee.

Another committee dubbed Neighbors Together Supporting Cindy Chavez for Mayor 2022 was formed earlier this month, though it is unclear how much money it has raised. State Senator David Cortese’s former policy aide is listed as the group’s principal officer.

The San Jose Police Officers Association is also sponsoring a political action committee called A Better Way San Jose to support Chavez. Although the association has not yet disclosed any contributions, union spokesman Tom Saggau said Wednesday that “it’ll be north of the 49ers’ initial $300,000 contribution.”

Chavez has received the sole endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, the San Jose Police Officers’ Association, the League of Conservation Voters and the South Bay Labor Council, which will also provide considerable funding for Chavez.

Chavez chalks up the support of the 49ers and numerous other elected officials and organizations to her “pragmatic and practical approach” and her “track record of accomplishments.”

“San Jose is the largest city in Northern California, and what that means is that we have an opportunity to play a leadership role in issues around tourism and creating a great business climate,” she said. “Because of that, I think we have to recognize that that’s a core job of the mayor — to create an environment where people want to live, work, play, send their kids to school.”

The five-alarm fire quickly grew into a conflagration and forced hundreds to flee the store and nearby businesses and homes. The fire raised questions about the building’s fire-response systems, after witnesses reported the fire alarms did not sound until nearly everyone was outside, and that the store’s sprinklers did not appear to activate.

Dyllin Jaycruz Gogue, 27, of San Jose, is accused of intentionally igniting the blaze that erupted on April 9 in the lumber section of the Home Depot at 920 Blossom Hill Road. He has been charged with three counts of arson, seven counts of grand theft and three counts of petty theft, which carry a sentence of 14 years to life in prison if he is convicted on all the alleged crimes.

“I’m thankful that my office — the DA’s office — is not prosecuting a multiple murder case today,” District Attorney Jeff Rosen said Tuesday, praising the quick response of more than 100 city firefighters. “Miraculously no one was hurt … But it came close — far, far too close — to causing many injuries and deaths.”

Investigators say Gogue lit the fire before attempting to flee the store. He was stopped by an employee but took off in a waiting vehicle, Rosen said. The investigation also alleges that Gogue had stolen merchandise from a nearby Bass Pro Shops store prior to the blaze, and that after leaving the scene he went on to steal from an East Bay Macy’s store.

He was arrested Friday and booked into the Elmwood men’s jail. During his initial court appearance Tuesday, Gogue did not enter a plea and was remanded to jail without bail, pending another court appearance on June 1.

A police statement accompanying the arson charges alleges that Gogue “made statements regarding starting the fire,” but it was unclear to whom he reportedly told that.

The fire was first reported to dispatchers by Home Depot employees and patrons at about 5:30 p.m. on April 9, and it took firefighters six hours to get the blaze under control. Investigators have estimated the fire caused $17 million in inventory loss for Home Depot, in addition to tens of millions in structural damage to the building.

“When someone commits a terrible act of this magnitude that endangers many, our people spring into action to save lives — and that’s what our police department and first responders did that day,” police Chief Anthony Mata said.

Still, questions about how the flames were able to level the Home Depot so quickly and whether fire code violations at the building played a role remain unanswered. Records recently obtained by this news organization reveal that several notable fire code violations were discovered over the past two years at the 98,000-square-foot store.

On May 19, 2020, San Jose’s Bureau of Fire Prevention found that the store was not maintaining a proper amount of clearance between the ceiling, where the sprinkler system was secured, and storage. Inspectors also instructed Home Depot officials to “secure insulation hanging from the ceiling.”

The records suggest that San Jose fire officials were tasked with re-inspecting the code violation at least 23 times and that it was not marked as remedied until Oct. 26, 2021, or 17 months after the violations were first reported.

In a separate inspection in December 2020, fire officials recorded that Home Depot had failed to provide proof of recent inspections of the store’s fire alarm and sprinkler systems, a violation that was reconciled the following month.

A hazmat inspection on Oct. 5, 2021 — the last time the site was examined by safety officials — uncovered an additional violation for inadequate workspace for electrical service equipment. That violation was remedied on Oct. 26, 2021.

San Jose Fire Chief Robert Sapien Jr. said Tuesday that his department was still investigating whether the fire systems or the previous code violations affected the growth of the fire.

“It is difficult without all of the information yet available to say how exactly this fire was precisely lit and then how quickly it spread,” Sapien said. “The size of the fire was absolutely remarkable, and it leaves us with some questions that we’d like to have answered as well.”

Court records show Gogue has a minor criminal history in Santa Clara County, most of which surfaced in the first few months of this year.

He was charged with misdemeanor battery in March 2021 after being arrested in Campbell three months earlier. On Jan 21, he was arrested in Sunnyvale and later charged with petty theft. Gogue was arrested again on March 5 at an REI Store in Sunnyvale, and four days later he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor counts of petty theft and being under the influence of a controlled substance. For that conviction, he was sentenced to a year of probation and was ordered to stay away from the store. On March 30, he was arrested in San Jose and two days later was again charged with petty theft.

The arson charges involve the blaze at the Home Depot as well as fire damage to two adjacent homes. None of the grand theft and petty theft charges filed Tuesday are connected to those past cases or to the thefts alleged on the day of the fire. The new theft charges span from October 2021 to April 2, involving $17,000 worth of items from six South San Jose retailers.

Investigators have not linked Gogue to any other fires.

In a statement Tuesday, Home Depot applauded the investigation that led to Gogue’s arrest, and thanked its “associates for the fast action and courage they showed to quickly evacuate the building, which ensured no one was harmed.”

Mayor Sam Liccardo also emphasized the mortal danger that the city avoided and lauded the investigation by police — with the assistance of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — that led to Gogue’s arrest.

“This was a fire that could be detected from outer space and within feet of hundreds of homes, Steinbeck Elementary School and many, many other sensitive locations in our city,” Liccardo said. “I am grateful that this is only an arson and theft investigation.”

A man has been arrested and charged with igniting a massive blaze that destroyed a Home Depot earlier this month in South San Jose, authorities said Monday, as newly released records show that the store had been cited by city fire inspectors for failing to show proof its fire alarm and sprinkler systems were fully operational.

Authorities believe the man arrested ignited the five-alarm fire that broke out on April 9 in the lumber section of the Home Depot at 920 Blossom Hill Road. No one died in the fire — which was so intense at its peak that its heat signature was detected in space by orbiting weather satellites — though the residual effects left neighborhood residents fending off noxious smoke for at least two days after.

Multiple law-enforcement sources told this news organization that the arrest occurred over the weekend, meaning the person detained could be arraigned in court as soon as Tuesday afternoon. But details including his identity and motive for setting the store ablaze were not immediately released.

Meanwhile, inspection records from January 2021 revealed that San Jose fire officials registered concerns about the fire alarm and sprinkler systems of the 98,000-square-foot building. Customers and employees who were at the Home Depot when the fire broke out have questioned why the store’s fire alarms apparently did not sound until nearly everyone was outside of the building and whether the store’s sprinklers ever activated.

The records obtained by this news organization indicate that during the January inspection, San Jose’s Bureau of Fire Prevention asked the Home Depot store to provide records of its annual inspections of the fire alarm system and to service its sprinkler system “ASAP” or show documentation that system had been inspected within the past five years. The records indicate that inspectors were following up on violations found during a prior visit less than a month earlier, in December 2020.

The San Jose Fire Department said late Monday that the violations were subsequently remedied but did not make clear how or when.

A subsequent hazmat inspection on Oct. 5, 2021 — the last time the site was examined by safety officials — uncovered a separate violation regarding an inadequate amount of workspace for electrical service equipment. That violation was remedied less than a month later, the inspection report indicates.

The city’s fire code states that facilities such as the Home Depot should be inspected annually to ensure that sprinkler systems, water pipes and other fire protection systems are up to date.

Dispatchers were alerted to the blaze at about 5:30 p.m. on April 9, when they received numerous calls from employees and patrons about a commercial structure fire, according to fire officials. The Home Depot store, housed in a shopping center across from Westfield Oakridge Mall, went up in flames within minutes, sending customers and employees fleeing for their lives.

More than 100 firefighters responded to the scene and the neighborhood behind the store in an attempt to prevent any damage to nearby homes and businesses.

The intense heat that the flames put off — created by a mixture of lumber, chemicals and paint products inside — formed a massive plume of black and gray smoke and was so strong that it was detected by orbiting satellites. It took firefighters six hours to get the blaze under control. Officials have not yet provided a cost estimate for the building’s destruction and loss of store merchandise.

Monday’s arrest news came more than a week after investigators began working to determine the cause of the fire. Agents with the ATF arrived at the scene on April 13 to assist with the investigation. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office has announced a Tuesday morning news conference with San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, the city’s fire and police departments and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to discuss the arrest and other details of the fire investigation.

The San Jose fire would not be the first blaze sparked by an arsonist at a Home Depot. In June 2017, an arsonist in Canada was sentenced to five years in jail for allegedly using a lighter to spark a blaze in the paint section of a Home Depot store.

In March 2018, a 50-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of setting a fire inside a Home Depot store in Mesa, Arizona. And just two years ago, a Home Depot employee in Ohio was indicted on a felony charge for allegedly purposefully setting the store he worked at on fire, according to reports.

But while some of the Home Depot stores suffered extensive fire and water damage in these cases, it does not appear that any of them were leveled in the way that the San Jose store was.

So when a Home Depot store in South San Jose quickly burst aflame last weekend, many residents were reminded of one of the city’s last calamitous structure fires: the 2002 Santana Row blaze.

While San Jose has experienced a multitude of other massive infernos in the past two decades — including a 2010 blaze that burned most of Merritt Trace Elementary School to the ground and a 2014 five-alarm fire that destroyed a 120,000-square-foot warehouse — Santana Row remains the worst in San Jose history, ingrained in the minds of many residents.

In some ways — from the building types to the size and breadth of destruction — the Santana Row and Home Depot fires are quite different. But stories told by residents feature sobering similarities.

In both cases, San Jose residents scaled their neighbors’ roofs to put out flames, and observed embers the size of dinner plates fall from the sky blocks away from the fires’ origins. They gathered under clear, blue skies to watch as a part of their community dissipated before their eyes.

Videos and photos of the five-alarm fire that broke out at about 5:30 p.m. on April 9 in the lumber section of the Home Depot at 920 Blossom Hill Road went viral on social media. The intense flames, which were detected by orbiting satellites, leveled the store at an alarming speed. It took at least 100 firefighters from 30 units to contain the blaze and prevent flames — sparked by a mix of lumber, paint and an array of other flammable products inside the store — from destroying neighboring homes and businesses.

San Jose fire investigators were still working Wednesday to determine the cause of the fire, including whether it was intentionally set. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive is now assisting in the investigation.

Facilities like Home Depot should be inspected annually to ensure that a buildings’ sprinkler systems, water pipes and other fire protection systems are up-to-date, according to the city’s fire code. The fire department last inspected this Home Depot store — which was built in 1977 and measures 97,000 square feet — on Oct. 5, 2021, and inspectors did not find any code violations at that time, according to San Jose Fire spokesperson Erica Ray.

Still, customers and employees who were at the Home Depot when the flames erupted have questioned why the store’s fire alarms reportedly did not sound until nearly everyone was outside of the building — and whether the store’s sprinklers ever went off.

The Santana Row fire, by comparison, erupted at 3:36 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 19, 2002, at a building that covered approximately six acres — or more than four football fields — in the then-under-construction shopping development.

The fire went up to 11 alarms, forcing the city’s fire department to seek help outside of Santa Clara County for the first time. More than 200 firefighters and 70 trucks, engines and other vehicles — or about double that used for the Home Depot fire — were called in to assist. Like the Home Depot fire, there were no deaths nor major injuries reported in the Santana Row blaze.

“It was just a horrible, horrible time because we were climbing out of a recession and that was a bright star,” said Nanci Klein, director of San Jose’s Economic Development Office, who added that it set construction of the development back approximately two years.

During the investigation into the cause of the destructive 2002 blaze, fire investigators pursued two primary possibilities — that it was caused accidentally by some kind of heat work being done as part of the construction activities or that it was intentionally set. Investigators were never able to make a final determination.

Former San Jose residents Ken and Jane Pyle, who lived about a half-mile south of Santana Row on the other side of Interstate 280, still remember a neighbor grabbing a ladder and climbing on top of their home to stomp out three spots where their roof had begun to burn.

“We were just lucky,” Ken Pyle said in an interview Wednesday. “If no one had been home, odds are that it would have burnt down.”

Nearly two decades later, 17-year-old Oscar Pack, who lives just behind Home Depot on El Lisa Drive, jumped into action and too grabbed a hose to extinguish embers on his neighbor’s roof.

“It was pretty scary because it was huge,” Pack said about the fire at the nearby home improvement store.

The Santana Row fire caused more than $100 million in damage to the development. But dozens of residents felt a far greater loss from fiery embers that rained down on nearby homes and apartments.

More than 30 apartments and townhouses in the Moorpark neighborhood were also destroyed by subsequent fires lit by fiery embers that traveled more than a half-mile away from Santana Row and ignited rooftops, causing an additional $2.5 million in damage.

In the case of the Home Depot fire, the department has not reported that any other businesses or homes were destroyed by the falling embers, though some did sustain damage to their roofs and backyard fences due to the firefighting efforts and falling embers. During the firefight, Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office helicopter spotted two fires nearby and reported them to crews on the ground, but the fire department has not yet said whether they were connected to the main blaze at Home Depot.

“That was the most tragic thing about the Santana Row fire — the people who lived in the apartments and didn’t have renters’ insurance and lost everything,” Ken Pyle said.

After the Santana Row fire, the city’s fire department faced backlash for how it responded to the subsequent fires that erupted in the Moorpark neighborhood, as reports by this news organization found that firefighters were repeatedly turned down when calling for backup. But in the two decades since then, the department has made a slew of changes and updates to its mutual aid and emergency communication systems in order to better handle major incidents.

Still, issues persist. The San Jose Fire Department, which was already one of the leanest big-city fire agencies in the nation when the Santana Row fire erupted, is even leaner today — even as the number of calls firefighters are asked to respond to has nearly doubled. Although that doesn’t mean the city cannot handle a major inferno like that of Home Depot, Matt Tuttle, president of San Jose Firefighters Local 230, said it does make it more difficult to respond to other emergencies that might happen simultaneously.

“The efforts of our firefighters were nothing short of heroic,” Tuttle said. “… But yet again our firefighters continue to do more with less on a regular basis.”

Staff writer Summer Lin contributed to this story. 

First-hand accounts from customers and employees who were at the store when the fire began have raised doubts about when the store’s fire alarms sounded, and whether the store’s sprinklers ever went off. So far, the San Jose Fire Department has yet to answer any questions from this news organization regarding the store’s sprinkler and alarm systems. Home Depot, meanwhile, has referred all questions to the fire department.

“We’re talking to the alarm company, the people who were there and the witnesses to it. All of that will need to be looked at and that’ll be part of the investigation,” San Jose Fire spokesperson Erica Ray said Monday, adding that it could be “days, weeks or even months” before the agency concludes its investigation.

Crews continued to monitor hot spots, as debris trapped underneath the collapsed roof caused small flare-ups, according to fire officials. At the site of the fire, the smell of burning plastic and chemicals lingered in the air. Police were also on the scene to secure the site as investigators inspected the remains of the building in hopes of narrowing in on a cause.

“The roof is doing its job, unfortunately, even in the state that it is in, which is creating a blanket over the debris underneath,” Ray said. “We’d like to get in there to more aggressively tackle some of the smoldering fires, but we want to make sure we’re not compromising the scene, so we’re fighting it from a more difficult vantage point right now.”

The five-alarm fire, which was reported at about 5:30 p.m. Saturday, sent a thick black and gray plume of smoke so far into the sky that it could be seen all across the South Bay. The intense heat that it put off — created by a mixture of lumber, chemicals and paint products inside — was so strong that it was detected by orbiting satellites. It took firefighters six hours to get control of the flames.

Josh Thompson, an employee in the lumber section, was in the back near the breakroom when he heard there was a fire and was told to evacuate. He ran over with a fire extinguisher and tried to put out the blaze, but it was already too late. He then went to the back to check if there was anyone still in the building and alerted a co-worker, who had headphones on and was watching something on her phone. They evacuated through an emergency exit at the side of the building.

Thompson said the fire alarms had gone off and a firefighter told employees the sprinklers were working but they weren’t able to keep up with the fire. Thompson said he himself hadn’t witnessed any sprinklers going off.

“I know I didn’t get wet,” he said.

Jeff Baham, 54, of San Jose, was in the store with his wife getting paint mixed when Baham said his wife smelled what she described as a campfire. A cashier then walked down the aisle and informed people that there was a fire and they needed to leave.

“My first comment was to the person behind me — why isn’t there a fire alarm?” he said.

As Baham and his wife were exiting the store, someone on the loudspeaker told everyone to leave. Baham said the alarms finally went off once they were outside, and a giant billow of grey smoke rolled through the front door.

“You could see through the doors, the fire falling from the ceiling — embers and big chunks of flaming red coming down,” he said, adding that they never saw any sprinklers go off. “If you were in the back of the store and for some reason waited until the alarm went off, it would’ve been dangerous or maybe they wouldn’t have made it out.”

Philip Hurst, a 36-year-old San Jose resident, was at Home Depot to buy plants and soil and had already made it to his car when he saw a commotion at the front of the store and ran back through the parking lot. He quickly pulled out his phone to take videos and photos of the fire.

About 130 workers were employed at the now-leveled Home Depot store, according to the Nanci Klein, director of the city’s Economic Development Office. Most of those employees are expected to be transferred to one of the five other Home Depot locations in San Jose or those in nearby cities, she said.

Home Depot is one of the top tax-revenue driving businesses in San Jose, as well as serving as a good community partner and gathering place for residents, Klein said.

“It’s a terrible loss,” Klein said. “We’ll be eager, hopefully, to see that this will be rebuilt and get back to all of the benefits — maybe even bigger and better.”

More than 100 firefighters responded to the blaze, as well as to the neighborhood behind store in an attempt to prevent any damage to nearby homes. Evacuations were issued for approximately 15 nearby homes on El Lisa Drive, as well as several nearby stores and businesses.

While there were no reports of injuries or missing people, residents in the area were asked to shelter in place overnight Saturday to avoid exposure to potentially harmful pollution put off by the melting plastics and other hazardous materials inside the store,

Sherrie Butts, 59, who lives behind the Home Depot store and runs a daycare business out of her home, smelled smoke Saturday. Butts — who lives with her 77-year-old mother and walks with a cane — said their neighbors helped them evacuate.

“Within minutes, the white smoke just came in. My throat was burnt. I couldn’t even holler help to get my dog down the stairs,” she said.

The fire damaged her roof and her fence was broken down by firefighters working to put out the blaze.

Henry Estrella, who lives on the corner of El Lisa and El Dori Drive, had just gotten out of the shower when he smelled what he thought was burning plastic. He went out the front door and saw the trees in front of his house engulfed in smoke.  Some embers blew over the rooftops, prompting Estrella’s 17-year-old neighbor Oscar Pack to climb up onto the roof and put them out with a hose.

“I just couldn’t believe it,” he said. “The energy that was in that fire was too much. I thought for sure the houses would’ve burned down here. The firemen did a tremendous job.”