Letters from the Public - 2 of 2 — San Jose City Council, June 21, 2022

Dear San Jose Mayor and City Councilmembers,

I am contacting you regarding the proposed El Paseo development project.

To begin with, I want to share with you an important fact about the El Paseo parcel. No one I know is opposed to the development of El Paseo. That is a positive thing. However, everyone I know and everyone I have discussed this plan with has expressed a consistent theme. This development needs to be THOUGHTFUL AND RESPECTFUL of the homeowners, the residents, and the community members.

Unfortunately, neither standard has been met with the current proposal. The project is neither thoughtful nor respectful of our community and our personal properties.

There are a multitude of problems and concerns with the existing plan and proposal. Below I highlight a few of the challenges the current plan poses for our community. However, this limited itemization is not inclusive of all challenges and does not negate the plethora and significance of other concerns we, as a community, have with the current proposal.

1. Project Density – As proposed this project significantly exceeds the density of every other development project in the area by at least 2 times. And this is only the first phase of development for this parcel. As such, the proposed density is unreasonable and is detrimental to our ability to sustain a vibrant and healthy community in this area of West San Jose. The density parameters for both phase I and all subsequent phases of this project should be significantly reduced.

More simply put, the proposed density is a blight!

And this trend by the City of San Jose to “urbanize” the middle-class suburbs and impose on those communities’ societal woes of overcrowding, infrastructure demands that cannot be met, heightened criminal activities, environmental destruction, unmanageable congestion, and significant safety issues severely undermines the quality of life for the working class families living in these communities. This trend is truly out of touch with the people you are supposed to be serving.

2. Building Heights - Eleven to twelve story buildings do not belong in our suburbs or any suburb, period. They are grossly oversized and unsightly in comparison to the surrounding neighborhoods. They do not respect the historical tradition of the residential properties located here, nor do they fit with the overall “look and feel” of our community. The Kaiser location on Lawrence Expressway has some of the tallest buildings in the area, yet the developer is proposing heights that are over 1 ½ times those structures. Buildings of these heights belong in downtown San Jose, not in the suburbs and not in our community. In fact, they will be a terrible eye sore and constant reminder of the ongoing effort to dismantle our neighborhoods.

Furthermore, the developer is suggesting that these unsightly residential towers be constructed so they abut and are adjacent to the neighborhood of Baker West. This proposed concentration of residential units with their roof top gardens along Quito Road and adjacent to the Baker West neighborhood makes no sense. Again, not only does this create a terribly unattractive sight line for our homes and properties, but these superstructures will be glaringly out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and will pose a serious invasion of privacy for the Baker West residents.

The solution is simple. No building on this property should exceed five stories and any building constructed adjacent to the Baker West neighborhood or any other existing residential neighborhood should not exceed the building height of the tallest structure currently on this site. There is enough flexibility with this parcel to move any five-story tower to a location that does not border existing residential properties and therefore would not stand in a sharp and jarring contrast to the traditional homes in our community.

3. Traffic and Congestion - With such a concentration of residential and commercial traffic in relatively few acres, this area of San Jose will be gridlocked and one constant traffic jam. That factor is further complicated by the unique location of our community. We are at the intersection of three cities, San Jose, Saratoga, and Campbell. And unfortunately each and every city has now targeted this area as their “dumping ground” for development and are pushing many of their high growth projects to our neighborhoods. As it stands today, this project and several other projects in both San Jose and Saratoga are now under consideration; all less than three miles from El Paseo. All of this “development” will significantly and negatively impact an already challenging traffic situation. The congestion and gridlock will become unmanageable and unsolvable. And as issues such as traffic conditions become intolerable and untenable, they are often ignored by elected officials and left to the local community to learn to live with the negative impacts.

Furthermore, the streets of the Baker West neighborhood, where our kids play, will become thoroughfares and speedways used as cut throughs between Quito Road and Campbell Avenue in an attempt to avoid the unrelenting congestion at Quito Road, Lawrence Expressway, and Saratoga Avenue. This is completely unacceptable.

The residential streets of Baker West will also be used for overflow parking, and there will be overflow.

Therefore, the already existing parking problems, as evidenced by the congestion at the corner of Elmwood Drive, Northlawn Drive, and Mayfield Avenue where just two small apartment complexes are located, will only expand and accelerate with this current proposal.

Finally, in regard to a credible traffic study, any traffic analysis for this proposal conducted during the pandemic and prior to January 2022 when many were working remotely and/or limiting travel would be MEANINGLESS. It would not accurately reflect the traffic challenges and routine congestion points that already exist in the area. But then again, that might be the point of doing such an assessment during the pandemic when results would be favorably skewed in favor of the developer’s proposal.

There may have been some good intentions initially behind this current proposal. We have heard from those who do not live in our community applaud this proposal for the affordable housing opportunities. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with such a claim. First, affordable housing in this area is a myth. All of the recent housing initiatives, including the urbanization of the suburbs and the passage of SB9 and SB10, were sold under that mythical banner while hiding their real intent; dismantle the suburbs.

The other problem with their claim is in their hubris. It is easy to push for a massive project that fundamentally and negatively transforms a local community when the project is not in your backyard. And it is easy to support a project that wreaks havoc on the quality of life of the residents and their property values when you do not live in the impacted neighborhoods.

It all comes back to the original theme shared by our community. We welcome the development of this parcel, but at the same time we do expect the development to be THOUGHTFUL AND RESPECTFUL of the homeowners, the residents, and the community members. As currently proposed, the development plan significantly misses the mark.

We suggest it is time for the Mayor and the City Councilmembers to pause, and with genuine attention given to the input and concerns of the community spend the time to REDEFINE, RE-EVALUATE, AND REVISE the current plan for El Paseo.

Sincerely,

Jan Vetrano

Shirden Flanders

19 June 2022

Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am a twenty-year resident in a nearby neighborhood (Baker West) and am writing this letter to urge you to reject The EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE SIGNATURE PROJECT.

I understand and support the need for additional housing however, this must be done in a manner harmonious to the existing neighborhoods in the immediate area. My areas of concern are:
• Traffic on and around Saratoga Ave. from Hwy. 280 west to Hwy. 85. This corridor is already notorious for congestion not only during commute times but also throughout the day. Traffic from the new residential units from San Jose and Saratoga developments will cause severe back- ups getting onto both Hwy. 280 and Hwy. 85. Add in a Costco and traffic will be at a standstill. • Building heights that are not appropriate for the development area neighborhoods. Nine, Ten, eleven and twelve story proposed towers not only add too many additional housing units, but they also will be out of place in the middle of single-story neighborhoods. The developments on Steven’s Creek Blvd. aren’t as tall. That area would be more conducive to taller buildings being on a commercial corridor.
• Lack of coordination with San Jose, the City of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara to weigh the effects of other developments in the immediate area. I don’t see impact reports that take into account the combined affects that all the developments in total will have on traffic, neighborhood parking and quality of life for existing neighborhoods with such a large influx of high-density housing.
• An additional Costco development across the street from these two developments. This will cause additional traffic not only during the week days but also particularly on the weekends.

I am asking the City of San Jose to reevaluate this development proposal and genuinely take input from the nearby neighborhood groups, work with the City of Saratoga and County of Santa Clara and put the developer interests second to existing homeowners’ concerns. I am sure that all parties can come to a consensus on a scaled down plan that satisfies the city goals and objectives, the developer’s desires and supports the quality of life in the nearby neighborhoods.

Please reject the Re-Zoning and PD Permit applications and require the developer to submit a more appropriate and complete plan for the 30-acre site. One with lower building heights, less residential density and less traffic congestion.

Sincerely,
Shirden Flanders

D1LG SJC-El Paseo Memo 06-18-22 Page 1 of 2

June 18, 2022

Mayor Sam Liccardo Vice-Mayor Charles Jones
Councilmember Sylvia Arenas Councilmember Pam Foley
Councilmember Magdalena Carrasco Councilmember Sergio Jimenez Councilmember David Cohen Councilmember Matt Mahan
Councilmember Devora Davis Councilmember Raul Peralez
Councilmember Maya Esparza

Subject: PDC19-049 & PD20-006
El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed-Use Village (Signature Project) Council Agenda Item – June 21, 2022

Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

The District 1 Leadership Group (D1LG), comprised of 26 neighborhood associations and community organizations requests that you do not approve as planned, the Rezoning and PD Permit applications to redevelop a portion of the 30-acre El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center located in District 1 at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Quito/Lawrence. D1LG favors development and growth that benefits the affected community. The current proposed El Paseo de Saratoga development project does not do that.

D1LG has been active in the development of several major projects over the past several years including Valley Fair, Santana West, and Winchester Ranch. D1LG has been engaged with the communities affected by developments in D1 to support planning of the developments that fostered growth and benefited the communities.

D1LG supports and recommends an El Paseo de Saratoga development project that provides the following:
• A plan for the entire 30-acre site. The plan would show how the proposed Phase 1 El Paseo 10-acre project would be integrated in the future development of the remaining 20 acres. • Bring non-residential density into alignment with comparable projects. The proposed plan non-residential density is approximately 1 to 3 times lower than Cambrian Park, Stevens Creek Promenade, and Vallco (Cupertino). D1LG recommends 18,056 sf/acre for non-residential density. • Bring residential density into alignment with comparable projects. The proposed plan residential density is approximately 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than Cambrian Park, Stevens Creek Promenade, and Vallco (Cupertino). D1LG recommends 82 units/acre for residential density.

DISTRICT 1, LEADERSHIP GROUP
www.D1LeadershipGroup.com

Chair: Steve Ling
Vice-Chair: Gary Cunningham
Treasurer: Betty Kabanek
Secretary: Gerald Giles
Member at Large: Doris Livezey
D1LG SJC-El Paseo Memo 06-18-22 Page 2 of 2

• Bring residential building heights into alignment with comparable projects. El Paseo Phase 1 proposes 92 units/acre with buildings of 9, 10.5, 11, and 12 stories. Buildings up to 8 stories are more appropriate for the area and more in line with other Signature Projects. Cambrian Park is 6 stories, Stevens Creek Promenade is 8 stories, and Santana Row is 7 stories. D1LG recommends an 8-story maximum building height.
• An independent, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation plan. The area is not well served by mass transit or bicycle alternatives to vehicles. The El Paseo de Saratoga development project is not included in the West San Jose Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP). D1LG recommends an independent, comprehensive, multi-modal transportation plan together with Saratoga and Santa Clara County be developed to ensure the infrastructure investments to support the envisioned densities and associated transportation requirements for the area. • Signature Project/Urban Village development clarification. The lack of an Urban Village plan and the designation of the El Paseo de Saratoga development project as a Signature Project has resulted in project requirements that are not clear or are not realistic for the size and location of the proposed 10-acre project. As a result, there is the potential risk for further developments in the area to be accomplished in a “patchwork quilt” fashion. D1LG recommends an Urban Village plan be developed for the area.

Currently, there are over 1,000 nearby residents affected by the proposed El Paseo de Saratoga development project who are opposed to the project and have signed petitions expressing that. The residents are opposed to the project as currently planned. The affected residents have expressed their concerns and made recommendations that addressed the concerns to the City Planning Commission, Planning Department, and the developer. The residents are in favor of a project that has a plan that addresses their building height, building density, and transportation needs concerns. The residents are also in favor of an urban village plan for the area.

Development planning that takes into consideration and includes the recommendations from communities affected by the developments will benefit both the residents and the commercial enterprises and provide positive growth to the area. The proposed El Paseo de Saratoga development project does not do that.

D1LG requests you consider our recommendations and do not approve the El Paseo de Saratoga development project as currently planned.

Respectfully,
District 1 Leadership Group
[External Email]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Item 10.2: Reject the Rezoning and PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006
Dr. Laura Crowe <
Fri 6/17/2022 8:53 PM
To: City Clerk <

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important

Mayor Licardo and Council Members,
I strongly urge you to reject the current ill-conceived plans for El Paseo, for all the reasons brought to your attention by the neighborhood associations and nearby residents. The traffic and dearth of public transportation alone should give you pause. This project as it is currently proposed is NOT appropriate for this site and approving it is no less than approving blight and compromised quality of life for both existing and future residents.

As a lifelong resident of the area (since 1974), graduate of local schools including Prospect High, and a local business and commercial and residential property owner, I strongly urge you to reject this project as it is currently proposed.

Laura Crowe, DDS

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Similarly, the planning staff was surprised and confused when we asked why the Public Notice signage at the project still showed the previous plan with its large green open space and 800 residential units when that plan had been abandoned over a year and a half ago. The City website and the developer’s own “El Paseo Together” website both had a lag of over six months before the new proposal was posted online. This has resulted in much confusion for residents over what is actually being proposed. We know from our own community outreach that many residents are unaware that towers of 11 and 12 stories are planned for the area.

The developer talks a lot about their extensive community engagement. While it is true that there have been opportunities for input, the developer has done the opposite of what we have asked for. The project has grown in height and density with each iteration. Input is not the same as influence, and residents have had very little influence on the parts of this project that truly matter. Meanwhile, paid ads are circulating that attack residents for our “last minute” and “fearful” opposition to the project. Neighbors have tried to work in good faith with the developer and the City from the outset.

A lack of coordination with the City of Saratoga, the VTA, and Santa Clara County agencies will make this area a strange conglomeration of oversized high-density structures that will hardly resemble the Urban Village imagined in the Envision San Jose 2040 plan.

I request that the Mayor and City Council reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications and require the developer to submit a better plan for surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and the City. Please don’t let this overbuilt and under-planned project go any further. San Jose deserves better.

Sincerely,
Luann Wilkins Abrahams
Moreland West neighborhood, D1

[External Email]
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
FW: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 7:44 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Sudipta Bhaacharjee <sudipta.bha
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 12:00 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 <
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

Dear Mayor Sam Liccardo and Council members,

We the undersigned are residents of Baker West neighborhood for the past 24 years. We are extremely concerned about the proposed El Paseo Mixed Use Signature project and urge you to reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applicaon and require the developers to submit a beer plan for the surrounding neighborhoods. The plan for the project must consider the following before it is approved by you and the council - 1) Lower building heights,
2) Less residenal density,
3) More new jobs,
4) Closer alignment with the City’s aﬀordable housing goals, and 5) Adequate and equitable access to parks space and amenies We are speciﬁcally worried about the following which I believe will aﬀect us deeply.

We are under historic drought condions in California and SJ Water has imposed deep restricons on water usage.

We are deeply concerned that this project will further deteriorate the situaon thereby pushing SJ Water to impose deeper water usage restricons.

With such a mega project in the immediate neighborhood the traﬃc condion we believe will deteriorate. This will create congeson on the roads and give rise to shortage in residenal parking spaces.

Kindly reconsider your decision and reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applicaon for the proposed EL Paseo Mixed Use Signature Project.

With Regards,

Sudipta Bhaacharjee & Kaberi Bhaacharjee
Residents of Baker West Neighborhood

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: New El Paseo phase 1 project needs changes
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 7:44 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Hines <
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 7:16 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: New El Paseo phase 1 project needs changes

New El Paseo phase 1 project needs changes!
The plan includes:
● Four large buildings with 6 towers rising to 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, and 12 stories: Tallest is 132 ft. Taller than Pruneyard Tower II.
● 994 apartments: 92 dwelling units/acre. SJ Signature Projects require 55 dwelling units/acre. ● Insufficient park space for 2,000+ residents: Far less than the 6 acres required for that density. ● Minimal number of new jobs: 190 from only 165,949 sf of commercial space replacing existing 126,345 sf of commercial space.
● Minimum number of affordable units: 149 (15%) + 845 market rate. ● 1,243 residential parking stalls for 2,000+ residents.

With some changes, this project could be improved for surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and the City: 1) lower building heights, 2) less residential density, 3) more new jobs, 4) closer alignment with the City’s affordable housing goals, and 5) adequate and equitable access to parks space and amenities.

Resident of nearby neighborhood.

Rod & Judy Hines

[External Email]
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: "Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project” City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 7:45 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Don Wong <
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 2:14 PM
To: City Clerk < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ District1 < District2
< District3 < District4 < District5
< District7 < District8 < District9
< District 10 <
Cc: Chris Vasquez < SJ Wong <
Subject: "Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project”

Dear Public Oﬃcials

I am wring in concern over this project.

The current project has 994 dwelling units, but there's only 1,243 residenal parking. 'Normally' there's probably at least two cars per dwelling unit, which means there would be
1,988 cars. Since there's only 1,243 spaces available, there will be an overﬂow of 745 cars overﬂowing into
surrounding shopping park areas and adjacent neighborhoods.

The overﬂow of parking will get worse, during the holiday seasons with visitors.

It's not realisc to assume that a 'taxi' service (like Uber) would reduce the density of cars.

Obviously, we would either need to increase the parking spaces or reduce the number of units

Respecully

Don Wong
Resident of Saratoga Woods Community

[External Email]
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave.MIxed Use Village (Signature Project) PDC19-049& PD20=006
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:00 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: sarah ﬂanders <sarahdﬂ
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:04 AM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave.MIxed Use Village (Signature Project) PDC19-049& PD20=006

Dear Mayor Liccardo ,

I have concerns over the El Paseo and Saratoga Ave Mixed-use Village development project that is planned to happen in the near future. My concerns are the height of the proposed buildings, the impact of traffic in the area, and the impact on the Moreland Elementary and Campbell Union High School Districts.

The heights of the proposed buildings are outrageous for an area of single family neighborhoods where the EL Paseo development is to take place. This area is made up of single family homes most of which are single story. Eleven and twelve story buildings have NO business being here. Those building heights are for downtown areas and this is NOT downtown! They will be an eyesore in our community. I am willing to compromise with development if it is reasonable, however anything over 6 stories is overkill and out of place. I feel the developer is thinking only of their own profits rather than the feelings of those who live in the community that is about to be redefined.

The streets around the El Paseo development were not designed to have the flow of traffic that will result from the hundreds of residents the proposed development will house. These streets were designed in the 1950’s for the suburban neighborhoods that surround them. As a resident of this area for the majority of my 62 years, I have seen what were quiet streets, like Northlawn Drive and Bucknall Road, turn into thruways for those trying to avoid the traffic on Saratoga and Campbell Avenues. These streets were never intended for the mass of cars that exist now let alone those that will come from hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new apartment dwellers.

We have no train, trolley and very few bus lines in this area, how are these new people going to get around… CARS? Have you ever been on Saratoga Avenue at the highway 85 on and off ramps during the morning and afternoon commutes? The traffic on Saratoga Avenue is backed up for hours making direct travel on the street extremely difficult. Parents taking their students to school have to take them earlier to avoid the traffic in order to get to their own places of work on time. This in turn is a concern for the schools who are legally obligated to

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. ensure student safety once on a campus. As a teacher in the Moreland School District, I see this daily. Students are dropped off before 7a.m. when the gates are just being opened. These families have no other choice but to leave their kids at a dark,nearly empty school, so they can beat traffic.

I hope you will take into consideration the things I have mentioned and perhaps make some sound compromises on the height of the proposed buildings as this is going to impact the surrounding neighborhoods for years to come.

Sincerely,
Sarah Flanders

[External Email]
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: El Paseo development -- Council Hearing 6/21/22
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:02 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: DAVID WINN <
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:34 AM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
< City Clerk <
Subject: El Paseo development -- Council Hearing 6/21/22

re: El Paseo development
Mayor Liccardo and City Council:

I have read the detailed discussion generated by the 8
neighborhood groups relating to this development and I am deeply concerned that, if carried through, the quality of life in this area would be very negatively impacted.

I have lived here for 33 years, and while nowhere is perfect, the changes proposed are drastic: traffic is already busy but the changes would make it intolerable. Parking will become more difficult. I am 80 years old and cycling isn't an option. Even now there are no real green areas and very little public transport. The community had asked for a homeownership component, and it's disappointing that there is none.

I would ask the City Council to aim on improving the quality of life in this important development as opposed to
maximizing housing

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. density and all that goes with it.

David Winn
Moreland West resident

[External Email]
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:03 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Chris Vasquez <
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 2:05 PM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Fwd: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

Sorry for not cc’ing you
Chris Vasquez
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Chris Vasquez (Dolce Musica)" < >
Date: June 20, 2022 at 12:24:37 PM PDT
To: , , ,
, , , ,
, , ,
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project Thank you for this opportunity to address the San Jose City Council on the issue of the El Paseo Development.

My name is Chris Vasquez and I have lived in Saratoga Woods the last 28 years. I was born and raised in San Jose and have lived in San Jose prior for 40 plus years. I have several signiﬁcant concerns about the impact that the current El Paseo plan will have on us. Currently, our neighborhood, bounded by Saratoga Avenue, Cox and Lawrence expressway, is impacted by tremendous traﬃc on all streets, parcularly Saratoga Avenue which is a main thoroughfare from Highway 85 to the proposed development.

This traﬃc impacts safety as many people cut through our neighborhood, increases exposure to potenal crime and lile thought or acon has been given to the negave impact increased traﬃc from the development will have.

In addion, Saratoga’s Housing Element plan designates our area for increased high- density development in the “pumpkin patch” area, (Saratoga/Cox) and the old Roku site in the same area potenally, and there is a planned 90-unit development in the Quito Shopping Center area. Coupled with the planned Costco in Westgate West, and the 2000 resident plus, high rise buildings in El Paseo, the result will have an unbearable

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. negave impact on traﬃc and safety in our area. As I menoned, people cut through our neighborhood, and in the past a child was tragically killed by a vehicle that turned into our neighborhood oﬀ of Saratoga Ave. at high speeds.

Addionally, there will be a negave impact on nearby Saratoga parks with so many residents, speciﬁcally El Quito park near the area, and possibly Kevin Moran park not far away.

I support aﬀordable housing iniaves, and our area as you can see has been selected for the majority of high-density housing in Saratoga. However, I understand the El Paseo plan doesn’t align with San Jose’s aﬀordable housing goals, and won’t result in the adequate creaon of new jobs.

Because of the inadequate addressing of traﬃc and safety issues in the current El Paseo plan and impact to parks space and amenies, and inadequate addressing of more new jobs and San Jose’s aﬀordable housing goals, I request that the Mayor and City Council reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applicaons and require the developer to submit a beer plan for surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and the City – that addresses:
1) lower building heights,
2) less residenal density,
3) more new jobs
4) closer alignment with the City’s aﬀordable housing goals, and 5) adequate study and resulng adjustments on the issues of traﬃc and safety in the area
6) and equitable access to parks space and amenies

I am hopeful you will address my concerns,

Chris Vasquez, President
Saratoga Woods Security Community Associaon

From: Shirley Wong <
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:42 PM
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

Dear City Planners

Here are a few reasons it will be detrimental to our community.

Parking Issues - you plan to have 994 units to 1243 parking spaces. There are not enough parking spaces. Realiscally you should have 2 parking spaces for each unit. There should be parking for the employees managing the facility, and allocated parking for vising guests of the resident. Otherwise, the cars will overﬂow into the homes surrounding the apartment complex, and it will take up parking spaces that were meant for the current businesses (REI, AMC, Hallmark...) in the shopping center.

Traﬃc issues - There is no mass transit (Bart, or trains) nearby. In this area, you need a car to get around. The city of Saratoga also plans to add the majority of their aﬀordable housing commitment in this neighborhood. 410 units across the street from the El Paseo project. 434 units on Cox and Saratoga Ave. Traﬃc to Hwy 85 and 280 will be a nightmare.

Water demand will go up, as supply goes down, which will increase our water bill. I have lived in California my enre life, and I noce the drought occurring more oen. I do believe the water problem is going to get worse in the coming years.

City and state should focus their aenon on water shortage rather than building more apartments. We need water to survive.

Recreaonal park - There is not enough public space for all the addional residents.

Educaon - More students per class, which will aﬀect academic quality.

Air quality will decline due to added residency.

The list goes on. You need to listen to the residents of this community. They invested their life and savings into this community. Do not let people who don't live here, proﬁt from our community, and force us to have to live with the consequences.

Below I have included a table of current plans for our community from the city of San Jose and Saratoga.

Shirley Wong

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: <
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:14 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

Thank you for this opportunity to address the San Jose City Council on the issue of the El Paseo Development.

My name is Ron Leckie and my wife and I have lived in Saratoga Woods for the last 33 years. I have several signiﬁcant concerns about the impact that the current El Paseo plan will have on us.

Currently, our neighborhood, bounded by Saratoga Avenue, Cox and Lawrence expressway, is impacted by tremendous traﬃc on all streets, parcularly Saratoga Avenue which is a main thoroughfare from Highway 85 to the proposed development. This traﬃc impacts safety as many people cut through our neighborhood, increases exposure to potenal crime and lile thought or acon has been given to the negave impact increased traﬃc from the development will have.

Coupled with the planned Costco in Westgate West, and the 2000 resident plus, high rise buildings in El Paseo, the result will have an unbearable negave impact on traﬃc and safety in our area.

Addionally, there will be a negave impact on nearby Saratoga parks with so many residents, speciﬁcally El Quito park near the area, and possibly Kevin Moran park not far away.

Because of the inadequate addressing of traﬃc and safety issues in the current El Paseo plan and impact to parks space and amenies, and inadequate addressing of more new jobs and San Jose’s

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. aﬀordable housing goals, I request that the Mayor and City Council reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applicaons and require the developer to submit a beer plan for surrounding neighborhoods, new residents, and the City – that addresses:
1) lower building heights,
2) less residenal density,
3) more new jobs
4) closer alignment with the City’s aﬀordable housing goals, and 5) adequate study and resulng adjustments on the issues of traﬃc and safety in the area 6) and equitable access to parks space and amenies

I am hopeful you will address our concerns,

Sincerely,

Ron Leckie

[External Email]
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 : El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed-Use Village (Signature Project)
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:05 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: John Oberstar <
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:20 PM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
Cc: City Clerk <
Subject: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 : El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed-Use Village (Signature Project)

Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

I am a resident of the Baker West Neighborhood, directly south of the site.

I request you to not approve as planned the Rezoning and PD Permit applicaons for redevelopment of a piece of the 30 acre El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center. The current plan maximizes the density of market rate housing while delivering minimally on other San Jose crical needs.

Signature Projects are meant to be an example for the remainder of the Urban Village as well as for other projects in terms of development and growth. The current Phase 1 El Paseo de Saratoga proposal does not yield Signature Project deliverables for the cizens of San Jose.

· The current Phase 1 proposal residenal density is 1.5 higher than the approved D1 Signature Project Stevens Creek Promenade, while delivering 2x lower non-residenal density in comparison to the same project. Stevens Creek Blvd is a major transit corridor focused on by several communies and has long been a part of the West San Jose Mul-modal Improvement Project (MTIP).

· The residenal density is so high that it leads to a requirement of 6+ acres of park/open space on the 10.8 acres site. The current proposal delivers only a 1.1-acre park together with 2.4 acres of public/private “open space” and ~18M$ of in-lieu fees to the City. The area is already recognized as one of the most park deﬁcient in the City.

· The Phase 1 proposal delivers the minimum or more correctly, 0.3% above the minimum, commercial footage.

Signature Projects must incorporate commercial footage “well above the minimum requirement.”

· The Phase 1 proposal exceeds the housing target for the enre Urban Village but provides only 190 new jobs toward the 1500 job goal of the Urban Village.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. · The Phase 1 proposal delivers a high density of market rate units, 885 on 10.8 acres, but delivers only the minimum of below market units, 149 (15%). According to reports, all the BMR units are allocated to the upper AMI income ers of the RHNA targets.

· The residents of the “Aﬀordable Tower” in the Phase 1 proposal are located on another site separated by six lanes of Saratoga Avenue from many site amenies. They are located furthest away from the 1.1-acre park. (The two disnct sites are connected only by a crosswalk and according to (09/2019 PD memo) would require two separate Signature applicaons.)

· The strained state of the transit infrastructure is evident by the following DEIR traﬃc report conclusion for one of development opons that had been under earlier consideraon: “…opon would cause substanal increases in traﬃc volumes….Improvements to address the adverse eﬀect on the freeway segment would require either widening the freeway or reducing the project trips. Caltrans has no plans to widen SR 85…….level of trip reducon is not feasible.”

· The Phase 1 proposal delivers new bike lanes around the site, but these bike lanes are not connected to any other protected bike lanes. Lawrence and Saratoga Avenues bike lanes are rated “Extreme Cauon” by the VTA. Due to a high proporon of fatalies Saratoga Avenue from the site to 280 is a Vision Zero Priority Safety Corridor.

A beer proposal for San Jose that addresses more issues would include:

· Residenal and non-residenal densies and building heights in closer alignment with other San Jose Signature Projects.
o Building heights of 8 stories
o Residenal densies closer to Steven Creek Signature Project (63 DU/acre), while maintaining a build commitments to > 149 BMR units and locang them throughout the site o Non-residenal densies closer to Cambrian Signature Project (18,900 sf/acre)

· A project based on a comprehensive, mul-modal transit plan together with Santa Clara County and Saratoga to support the envisioned Urban Village densies and transportaon needs.

· Housing, commercial space, and parkland targets for the enre 30 acre El Paseo site.

A large number of residents have signed a peon to be submied at Tuesday’s Council meeng expressing their opposion to the current Phase 1 project proposal. They are not opposed to or fearful of redevelopment. Rather, they are concerned about development that delivers minimally against a number of City needs, is poorly supported by area infrastructure and transit investment, and is not supported by clear planning targets.

I know you are faced with the challenge of ﬁnding the best soluon amidst conﬂicng requirements and a constrained budget. San Jose residents will be living with the results of this project for decades to come. That is why it is important to get the details right now and not approve the current Phase 1 plan.

Do not approve as planned the Rezoning and PD Permit applicaons for redevelopment of a piece of the 30 acre El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center.

Respecully,

John Oberstar
D1, Baker West Resident

[External Email]
FW: Paseo de Saratoga
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:06 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: J'Carlin <
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:20 AM
To: City Clerk < District 10 < District 6 <
District1 < District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District7 < District8
< District9 < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ
Cc: Project Specialist <
Subject: Paseo de Saratoga

Greengs Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Jones, and Councilmembers-

Paseo de Saratoga is an important part of the 2040 Urban Village plan and should be approved without delay to provide crically needed housing at all levels, aﬀordable and Market rate. The project is well designed and ﬁts well into the neighborhoods surrounding it including nearby single family zoned cies like Saratoga and Campbell. It will provide them with necessary services and retail outlets by supplying the necessary local residenal demand support.

1. If anything it is too small. All residenal structures should be as tall as praccal to increase all levels of housing in the project. It is screened from Saratoga by an exisng berm with mature trees. The exisng part of the Shopping center, Westgate, and Prospect High School provide adequate buﬀer zones for Campbell and West San Jose neighborhoods.

2. Most traﬃc generated by the project’s residenal will use Saratoga and Prospect to get to highway 85, both of which have excess capacity to handle it. Lawrence Expressway to I-280 with the recent improvement of the Stevens Creek/280 intersecon also has plenty of capacity for expected traﬃc. I live near Bollinger and Lawrence and use all 3 roads regularly.

3. Transportaon on Demand as an alternave to residenal parking is already here and will be much more used in the near future. If you missed Catalyze SV’s recent webinar on the subject, it is available on catalyzesv.org past events. Please suggest that the developer substute required parking with housing as praccal.

Thank you. For your consideraon.

Carlin Black
Rered Urban Planner
West San Jose resident.
--
Carlin Black

Aka J’Carlin

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:06 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Diana Lubliner <
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 5:31 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

I urge the City Council to deny the approval of this "Signature Project" for now, in order to allow more me for everyone involved to review the project and its details regarding the overall plan for the area by both San Jose and the immediately adjacent cies of Campbell, Saratoga and Cuperno. These cies are literally across the street, and have dwelling unit plans of their own. A more comprehensive view of the area plans is necessary, and has not been fully addressed by the Environmental Impact Review of the El Paseo Project.

SIlicon Valley and all of the cies it encompasses are in desperate need of aﬀordable housing. However, this housing cannot be created from a vacuum, and simply creang a series of high-rise city-scape buildings is not suﬃcient. It is naive to expect that the rest of housing support infrastructure - biking lanes, bus lines, and other transportaon and social services will simply arrive because someone has built some dwelling units.

The people residing at the El Paseo "Mixed Use" signature plan will need this infrastructure. Sand Hill seems poised and ready to buy themselves out of the below-market-rate dwelling units, just like the current plans (not those they have publicly posted on outdoor signs, which are neglected and 3 plan iteraons out of date - but the ones they are just now sharing) clearly indicate they will buy out of the open park space requirement. Please do not allow them to buy out of the below-market-rate housing requirement.

If Sand Hill is allowed to buy out of their lower-income dwelling requirements, this means that the people living there will be ﬁnancially able to aﬀord cars. The area bicycle safety and pedestrian safety is minimal. These new residents will own cars. They will park them in adjacent neighborhoods. They will be using Uber, Ly and other ride services to transport themselves. This will impact many of the area transportaon corridors, and negavely impact people who are properly aempng to carpool by true ride-sharing methods.

Please allow more me for the proper review of all aspects of this El Paseo Project. Sand Hill has changed their plans too many mes, and the proverbial dust has not adequately seled for review and approval of this El Paseo Project.

Thank you,
Diana Lubliner

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 El Paseo and 1777Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Village City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 8:06 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: jody gradia <
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 6:57 AM
To: City Clerk < District1 < District2
< District3 < District4 < District5
< District 6 < District7 < District8
< District9 < District 10 <
Subject: PDC19-049 & PD20-006 El Paseo and 1777Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Village

Hello,
I am pleading with you to reject the El Paseo Mixed-Use Signature Project. I am a resident in the neighborhood that would be directly affected by this.

I was surprised that a project of this size would even be something this council would consider. I feel the plan is completely taking advantage of the City and its residents and I encourage you to negotiate further and be diligent in your efforts to have our city's vision remain in your focus.

The tower heights are way too tall - much taller than the ones at the Pruneyard and the Stevens Creek Promenade. There is no need for towers this tall in this neighborhood. The larger towers make the residential areas far too dense. This area is already crowded with traffic and this will make it worse. With an inadequate number of parking stalls per residents, people will be forced to park their cars in my neighborhood. Unbundling parking spots from rent will not discourage vehicles, people will still have to find somewhere to park.

I encourage you to reject this proposal and negotiate for the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. building heights no taller than 6 stories. Lower building heights would have a huge impact in making this project acceptable.

Thank you,
Jody M.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. project. Families just starting out would like to have a condo with safe play area for their childrren, young professionals would like to buy something. Even older retired people might want to have a nice condo. San Jose has few affordable homes to buy.

Saratoga, Hamilton, Prospect Intersection is 8 way and can be crowded at commute time. There is foot traffic also: kids at Prospect High School twice a day, and people walking to the shopping center from surrounding apartments.

It would be nice to have a comparison of other projects already in existence that are as dense as this and how they fare 5 years down the road as far as quality of life.

Regards, Janet Boeninger
and how they fare 5 years down the road as far as quality life.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications and require the developer to submit a more appropriate and complete plan for the 30-acre site – one with 1) lower building heights limited to 3 stories, 2) far less residential density, 3) more new jobs that pay more than low income wages / salaries, 4) one which affords new residents adequate and equitable access to parking, on-site parking and park / play space for all and amenities, 5.) Mandate the developer to build the additional infrastructure their project will require once leased up and / or sold.

The related City Planning Commissioners meeting with the public on Wed., May 25th, was highly offensive for numerous reasons. One of the offenses is when A and B were read they were full of code. At no point did I hear that either of these were to increase the building limits. Thus, I did not contest these because they were not presented in a manner the public could understand. This is egregious. Another offense is that SJ planning commission members intend to move into the affordable units of this project to enjoy the benefits… as one repeatedly revealed in - which is a clear, INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The people who vote for projects NEED to be prohibited from living in them to remove their conflict of interest.

At the same meeting SJ’s planning commission spoke of using West Gate West Mall’s parking for El Paseo De Saratoga’s needs. This was thought up as improv, during the meeting. It promotes illegal trespassing and sheer exploitation of the project's neighbors. No contract between the 2 property owners exists. The planning commission also spoke of using local schools as parks, which wrongfully transfers liability from the profitable development to the public tax payers. These schools are locked during the hours of operation to protect the students, faculty and other personnel / volunteers. At least one of the school campuses is locked shortly after hours to reduce the risk of various crimes and resulting costs. SJ’s Planning Commission needs a correction up to termination.

These last two offenses, in part verify that the infrastructure is NOT adequate for the proposed project. We lack water, stable internet service via all providers, adequate roads and public transportation for the current needs of residents and businesses. This project just exacerbates ALL of these inadequacies.

I’ve been researching the impact of Covid on local real estate demand. The bay area currently has more empty commercial real estate than actually occupied. Only ~ 26 % of pre-pandemic employee counts are forecast to return to their employers' work sites for many years to come. Without the need to appear face to face at an employer, employees can live anywhere. Free of needing to appear in person to work, I expect far less demand for local real estate both commercial and residential. This will leave a glutton of commercial real estate on the market, and substantially reduce the demand for housing.

Above all, once all of the region is overcrowded and over burdened I expect many more people to snap from the anxiety it causes. Some people who built this community from a place that was barely on the map, an unknown community nationally to a global attraction, NEED peace and quiet. We have had a diverse city, making it homogenous overcrowded is wrong on many levels. Please RESPECT the community at large and reject the Rezoning and PD Permit applications!
Sincerely,

Marcella Browning

[External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 10:21 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: John Chrisansen <
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 10:18 AM
To: The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo <TheOﬃ District1
< District2 < District3 < District4
< District5 < District 6 < District7
< District8 < District9 < District 10
<
Cc: Amy Cody < City Clerk <
Subject: Reject Rezoning & PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

Thank you for allowing me to contribute my thoughts regarding the proposed El Paseo project now before the council.

What is planned appears to be a greatly enhanced urban heat island that will shoehorn many more cars with accompanying traffic and parking troubles into an already seriously impacted neighborhood. Once the project is begun, it will be too late to do proper studies or devise mitigation to divert deleterious effects.

Please realize the seriousness and colossal (and, in my opinion, inappropriately large) size of this project and the responsibility you and the developers have to “get it right” for the sake of present and future constituents.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Lisa Christiansen
District 1 resident

[External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: 10.2 22-997 Oppose Rezoning/Permit for El Paseo1777 Saratoga Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 10:25 AM
To: Agendadesk <

From: Janet Boeninger <
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 10:22 AM
To: City Clerk <
Subject: Fw: 10.2 22-997 Oppose Rezoning/Permit for El Paseo1777 Saratoga Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006

To San Jose City Clerk.

I sent mail below to Mayor and SJ CC. City Clerk was copied but I'm not sure if you received it.

If you are able, would you please add just this letter to Public Comments section of SJCC June 21, 10.2, 22-997, if it is not already there. Attacment is deleted. There are already several out there.

Thank you,
Regards, Janet Boeninger

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Janet Boeninger <
To: < <
< <
< <
< <
< <
<
Cc: <
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022, 07:39:30 AM PDT
Subject: SUBJECT: 10.2 22-997 Oppose Rezoning&PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006”

FROM: Janet Boeninger
11840 Vallejo Drive, San Jose, CA 95130
Hathaway Neighborhood, District 1

SUBJECT: Reject the Rezoning and PD Permit for El Paseo and 1777 Saratoga Ave Mixed Use Project PDC19-049 & PD20-006. Item 10.2 22-997, San Jose City Council, June 21, 2022.

REFERENCE:

Letter dated June 8, 2022, Same subject, Sent by Moreland West and other NAs to Mayer Liccardo and Council members. cc: City Clerk.

Council Agenda Item 10.2, Item 22-997. Attached below:

TO: CITY CLERK: Please add my letter and June 8 letter from Moreland West NAs (attached below) to Public Comment Section of El Paseo Project June 21 CC meeting 10.2. 22.997

TO: Mayor Liccardo, San Jose Council Members

I read attached June 8 letter from Moreland West & other Neighborhood Associations opposing El Paseo Proposal.

What stood out is how high towers are and how dense El Paseo is compared with two other San Jose Signature Projects.. Stevens Creek Promenade Signature Project has
8 story towers and 63 units/acre. Cambrian Park Plaza has 6 story towers and 39 units/acre. El Paseo tops list with towers at 9, 10, 11, 12 stories and 92 units/acre.

Why are El Paseo towers so high compared with the other two projects? 92 units/acre
is much more dense than 63 or 39 units/acre. The 994 DUs in El Paseo Phase 1 (this project)
is more than the 919 DUs specified in San Jose General plan for 'entire El Paseo De Saratoga
Urban Villages project at this site'. The other two phases have not been planned or built yet
and there are other nearby projects that may be approved, like Costco. The high stories
allows more units to be built and adds to the density of the project.

It also sounds like park/green space may be traded for density, or at least may not meet requirements for the existing density. The size/density and equivalent amenities important to the way these project fit into the community and to quality of life for existing and new community members in San Jose.

The streets will have more congestion with 2000 more community members. in a small area. Traffic along Hamilton, near Saratoga, is slow because of multiple traffic lights to access shopping centers on either side of the road. Saratoga is a busy commute street at certain times.

I believe District 1 already has the most apartments/4-plexes of any San Jose District.

Not enough parking is already a big i
ssue in District 1: apartments and 4-plexes
don't have enough parking for all resident's cars.. People have to park and walk a long way
from home or play musical chairs with all their cars. Cars parked on streets overnight
are broken into and vandalized more frequently: expensive and time consuming for working people to fix.. If there is not enough parking in In El Paseo, the overflow to This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. residential street parking is out of the complex and down major street .

For this and other reasons listed in the letter, please reject the current Rezoning and PD Permit applications and work with the Neighborhood Associations to resolve someof the issues.

Regards, Janet Boeninger
.

June 20, 2022
San José City Council
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San José CA 95113
Re: Item 10.2 – Planned Development Rezoning and Planned Development Permit on a Certain Real Property Located at 1312 El Paseo de Saratoga and 1777 Saratoga Avenue Dear Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Jones and Councilmembers:

SPUR has long supported the city’s urban village strategy. We want to help implement the city’s vision of growing within walkable mixed-use communities that are connected by transit. SPUR believes that urban villages have great potential to accommodate housing and job growth in environmentally sustainable locations and help reorient the city’s streets and neighborhoods around people rather than cars.

One key facet of the urban village framework is the Signature Project - larger-scale mixed-use projects that meet certain city requirements and act as a catalyst for additional development that sit within the boundaries of an urban village that has yet to be adopted. Only a handful of Signature Projects have been approved since the policy was adopted. While not perfect, the project before you today has the potential to act as the impetus for additional developments that concentrate growth around transit, provide jobs, and create a vibrant neighborhood business district. Given the infrequency with which Signature Projects come along, the appropriate action at this juncture would be to approve the staff recommendation and allow this project to move forward.

With that said, we hope that as the project is finalized, it will be tailored further to focus more on people, and not cars. While we appreciate the developers efforts to reduce parking for the project, this is still by most definitions an auto-centric development. We believe the project

Dear Mayor Liccardo & San Jose Councilmembers:

As an active 25 year resident of West San Jose, I, along with my fellow West San Jose and Saratoga neighbors, urge you to REJECT the Rezoning and PD Permit applications for the EL PASEO & 1777 SARATOGA AVENUE MIXED- USE VILLAGE (aka Phase 1) of the 30-acre El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center located in District 1 at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Quito/Lawrence (a.k.a Signature Project).

Ultimately, the Signature Project lacks clear, insightful planning in addressing the surrounding community's limited infrastructure. Ignoring the infrastructure issues of the surrounding community will result in problems for this already dense single-family housing neighborhood area. The El Paseo & 1777 Saratoga Mixed-Use Signature Project does not align with San Jose's Urban Village strategy, development, and construction plans as defined in the “Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan - Amended June7, 2022.

Ultimately, the City Council needs to REJECT the Rezoning and PD Permit Application-“EL PASEO AND 1777 SARATOGA AVE MIXED-USE VILLAGE (SIGNATURE PROJECT)” due to:

1. The Proposal's dwelling units (994) EXCEEDS the 919 DU cited in the SJ General Plan for the ENTIRE 174 -acre Paseo de Saratoga Urban Village
PROPOSAL GOES AGAINST GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENT OF 55 DWELLING UNITS

PER ACRE
SQUEEZING 2,000 NEW RESIDENTS ON ONLY 11 ACRES OUT OF 30 ACRES AT EL PASEO! This fact alone, should be the reason the Rezoning and Permits need to be rejected. Developer is NOT following the City of San Jose's planning requirements.
2 . 1,243 residential parking spaces for approximately 2,000+ new residents is INSUFFICIENT.

In 2020, the state of California had roughly 27 million licensed drivers representing 69% of the state's population of 39 million.

The number of residential parking spaces proposed by the Developer represents only 62% of the potential total number of residents expected under this proposal.

Clearly, this is insufficient parking to support both the residents and potential patrons of the business in the development.

CURRENT PLAN IS TO “UNBUNDLE” PARKING SPOTS FROM RENT WHICH WILL CAUSE NEW RESIDENTS TO PARK IN SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF PAYING FOR “lLIMITED” DWELLING PARKING SPOT.

PROJECT WILL CAUSE OVERFLOW PARKING IN NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS INCREASING TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS.

3. EXTREMELY HIGH new resident density and EXTREMELY HIGH building heights in an INFRASTRUCTURE poor area- -
Current roads can NOT be further widened to help with the onslaught of 2,000 more resident-owned cars in the dense neighborhood area.

Mass transit in this area is insufficient to support the increased number of residents and their commuting needs.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION and ACCIDENTS WILL BE COMPOUNDED.

4. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is very poor in the area surrounding El Paseo. - Proposal does NOT meet the “Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan” REQUIREMENTS The area around the El Paseo site is surrounded by 4 public schools (Prospect High School, Moreland Middle School, Baker Elementary and Latimer Elementary.

All students from the surrounding schools currently risk walking/cycling to school dodging high speed, congested traffic due to lack of safe roadway/cyclist/pedestrian infrastructure as a result from the last redevelopment of El Paseo area (when AMC, REI, Office Depot and Lucky' Grocery Story were constructed).

Adding 2000+ more residents to the area will only compound the problem creating a transportation DANGER ZONE.

VTA currently suggests using extreme caution when biking/walking in the immediate area.

With the addition of 2000 residents and their cars, the danger to bikers and pedestrians will increase.

5. 2,000+ new residents, but only 190 new jobs perpetuates SJ's jobs to housing imbalance GOES AGAINST URBAN VILLAGE THEORY OF WORKING AND LIVING IN THE SAME PLACE.

INCREASES TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON ALREADY LIMITED and CONGESTED ROADS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

VTA lines are extremely limited in this area; they are not a viable option for commuting from this area.

This project PROMOTES the use of using cars to get to work.

6. ONLY 1.1-acre park area for 2,000+ residents: Does NOT meet the 6+ acres REQUIRED for 2,000+ residents per the City's own development criteria .

WEST SAN JOSE AND DISTRICT 1 ALREADY HA VE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF PARK SPACE OF ANY

DISTRICT IN SAN JOSE

7. EXTREMELY TALL BUILDINGS in a single-family neighborhood - Proposed buildings/towers rising from 9 to 12 stories in a single-family neighborhood.

Skyscraper development belongs downtown; not in a 60 year old single-family home suburb.

Tall building architecture in a suburb blocks the natural visible skyline established in the suburb.

The tall towers will ultimately create a concrete forest...not an urban village.

Proposed building heights OUT OF CHARACTER or surrounding community -

NO OTHER BUILDINGS LIKE THIS IN THE AREA
ARCHITECTURE DOES NOT MATCH THE SUBURB COMMUNITY .

This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources Residents of San Jose need City Leaders to require developers TO COMPLY with the General Plan and build within the limits of a community’s infrastructure.

The Developer has not maintained active, transparent engagement with the community as required under the San Jose Envision 2040 General Plan. The current plans posted at the El Paseo location site are obsolete and do not clearly communicate the development plans intended by the Developer. Results from Impact Reports have not been clearly shared and communicated to the community.

The neighbors surrounding El Paseo Shopping Center realize that development of the area will happen and we are in favor of improved commercial space and more affordable housing. However, City of San Jose Leaders need to ensure development DOES NOT OVERWHELM road and mass transit infrastructure. City of San Jose Leaders also need to ensure the development matches and is compatible with the character of the existing single-family home community and complies with the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan’s requirements.

The Council should reject the current Rezoning and Plan Development permits due to in-appropriate design and incomplete planning resulting in a project that does not meet the City of San Jose’s requirements for development in the “Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan -Amended on June 7, 2022.

Thank you for considering and advocating the needs of residents of West San Jose.

Sincerely,
Michelle Mapes

[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: San Jose council el paseo neighborhood
City Clerk <
Tue 6/21/2022 4:23 PM
To:Agendadesk <

From: Hila Shochat <
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:30 PM
To: City Clerk < The Oﬃce of Mayor Sam Liccardo
<TheOﬃ District1 < District2
< District3 < District4 < District5
< District 6 < District7 < District8
< District9 < District 10 <
Subject: San Jose council el paseo neighborhood

I would like to pay your attention to some of the concerns I have as a near by residents, adjacent neighborhood to el paseo de Saratoga.

My family and I moved to this area 10 years ago, and we have always enjoyed the unique neighborhood. During the years we noticed the changes that neighborhood has been through and we welcome most of it. We agree it doesn't make sense to see abandoned building in a such a high sought neighborhood. However, the latest planned development El Paseo de Saratoga, went too far. We do not except to leave in a forest, but it is too drastic to go to 12 story building, even if it is only one building. This will change drastically the environment, the skyline, traffic and more. I would suggest to go with the highest building being 5 story house. Please consider our input and our way of life.

Thank you

Hila Shoichet

San Jose City CouncilJune 21, 2022

San Jose City Council
June 21, 2022