San Bruno B.A.R.T.

  A jury has handed Tanforan Mall developers -- and two mall anchor stores -- a $27.5 million legal victory over BART.

  The outcome of the lawsuit, which SamTrans filed on behalf of BART to exercise eminent domain over Tanforan property, compensates developers Wattson Breevast and the Sears and Target corporations for loss of parking, land, and the ability to expand the shopping complex.

  The San Mateo County Superior Court jury awarded $19 million for loss of parking and $6.5 million for loss of 8 acres of land. Two million dollars was awarded for loss of expansion ability.

  The jury returned the verdict Monday, after deliberating for two and a half days. BART had offered $14 million in settlement. BART attorneys are reviewing their options and may appeal, said BART spokesman Mike Healy.

  "We're not terribly happy with paying double for a property that was properly evaluated at $14 million," Healy said.

  Wattson Breevast attorney Joe Thomas said he was satisfied with the suit's outcome.

  BART appropriated 8 acres of Tanforan land and 1,128 parking spaces when it began building an 8.7-mile extension from Colma in 1998.

  Wattson Breevast maintained in legal documents that it allowed BART early access to build on Tanforan property because BART had assured the developer all parking spaces would be replaced.

  "The principal issue from the day we started till the present time has been parking, replacement parking," stated former Tanforan owner Fred Nicholas, who negotiated with BART and was quoted in legal documents. "The shopping center lives and dies on the parking."

  BART lawyers argued in part that BART would bring enough shoppers to the mall to make up for the lack of parking. Wattson Breevast lawyers said this claim was an attempt by BART to avoid properly compensating the developers.

  The Tanforan Mall opened in 1971. Watson Breevast bought the shopping center in 1998 with the intention of giving it a major upgrade. As tenants left the mall, Watson Breevast did not fill the leases -- in preparation for the upgrade -- and patronage fell.

  According to Thomas, BART attorneys maintained that the shopping center required less parking than previously because fewer consumers were shopping there.

  "BART argued to the jury, 'You don't need (the parking). You don't use (the parking). We shouldn't have to pay you for it,'" Thomas said. "We said, 'No, that's not fair. The fact is we are going to need it, because we're remodeling the mall.'"

  The San Bruno BART station is scheduled to open next fall. The remodeled shopping mall is scheduled to open a year later.