Residents sue city over impact a Whole Foods store would have in El Paseo redevelopment

A month after the San Jose City Council authorised the redevelopment of the El Paseo de Saratoga purchasing heart — a task that contains approximately 1,000 units of housing — a group of residents has filed a lawsuit in opposition to the city, alleging it violated a state law that requires organizations to determine and mitigate environmental impacts.

At the root of the lawsuit, which was filed July 22 in Santa Clara County Outstanding Court docket by a team named Citizens for Inclusive Enhancement, is the new city village’s anchor retail outlet: a 40,000-sq.-foot Whole Foods.

The pure foodstuff grocery giant is just a single element of the significant redevelopment, which will reimagine two parcels of land together Saratoga Avenue, Lawrence Expressway and Quito Road on the city’s western edge.

The project incorporates 165,949 sq. ft of commercial area and 994 units of housing, with 150 of them reasonably priced. Most of the improvement will get position at 1312 El Paseo de Saratoga close to the existing searching centre. AMC Theatre, REI and Ulta will proceed to function there.

Developing heights are envisioned to access 99 to 132 toes, or nine to 12 tales, and there will be 3½ acres of open space, like a 1.1-acre park.

Citizens for Inclusive Progress is alleging the metropolis in no way disclosed in environmental reviews that a Entire Meals was a aspect of the growth. As an alternative, they assert San Jose assumed the room would be a “generic, non-grocery use,” which didn’t account for or mitigate the supplemental traffic, emissions or other environmental impacts, according to the lawsuit.

“At the very least just one firm submitted qualified belief documenting that the air high-quality and public health and fitness impacts from a Entire Food items grocery retailer will significantly exceed the impacts disclosed and evaluated in the draft and closing (Environmental Impact Report), which assumed only generic, non-grocery commercial employs,” the lawsuit stated.

With no analyzing those impacts, the group argues San Jose was in violation of the California Environmental Top quality Act when the town council accepted the job on June 22.

The town of San Jose, via spokesperson Demetria Machado, declined to comment, but Sand Hill House Co., which is acquiring the land, mentioned in a statement that “this lawsuit is an unfortunate endeavor to block a lot-needed housing in the metropolis and our region even with the point that this project was a Signature Project, had substantial local community engagement and gained unanimous City Council approval.”

Members of Citizens for Inclusive Enhancement and their attorney, Mark Wolfe of M.R. Wolfe and Associates, did not react to a number of requests for comment.

Citizens for Inclusive Development also alleges the town violated the State Preparing and Zoning legislation, which ensures agencies are following their typical ideas. The lawsuit argues the El Paseo task is “inconsistent and incompatible with the density and peak conditions relevant to ‘Signature’ tasks as delivered in the Standard Strategy.”

Signature initiatives are envisioned to advertise growth in the city’s urban villages.