Exhibit B — San Jose City Council, September 16, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

As is currently proposed, a standalone Chick-ﬁl-A and a large parking lot are not acceptable uses of the extremely 6/4/25, 12:45 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. limited land where higher-density, mixed-use development is allowed and needed in San José.

Please stand by the principles and plans we have created to guide our city and region into a better, more sustainable future. Please tell Chick-ﬁl-A to majorly re-work its San Carlos St proposal or locate elsewhere.

6/4/25, 12:45 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-02-21 14:29
To 'Elizabeth Whamond' <[email protected]>; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

Staﬀ notes the description of the Character Area deﬁnition of the project site; however, the allowable land use is controlled by the Land Use Designation portion of the document. This is a commercial project on a commercial- designated and commercial-zoned parcel that does not have a required minimum density. While the description allows for higher-density uses and the project does not meet some of the aspirational goals of the plan, lower- density uses are not precluded in Urban Villages, and can still ﬁt within the urban fabric of a higher-density area by contributing to the streetscape, walkability, and street-level vibrancy of districts.

Staﬀ has worked with the applicant to include elements in the project that would meet the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan goals by encouraging pedestrian access to the site and beyond, including widening both the San Carlos and Race sidewalks on the project site and making pedestrian and traﬃc safety improvements to the San Carlos and Race intersection. If approved and built, the project will also include a mural on the San Carlos frontage to integrate public art and contribute to the streetscape, and will create an outdoor patio on the corner to enhance pedestrian vibrancy through a low-barrier gathering space. Staﬀ also notes that nothing prevents nearby residents from walking to the site, nor would it prevent residents from other areas, including Downtown, or employees from taking transit to the site.

Regarding the proposed demolition and parking lot, ultimately, a private developer has proposed the project in this manner, and staﬀ must review and formulate a recommendation on the project as proposed. Ultimately, a decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Oﬃcer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.

Nevertheless, staﬀ has encouraged the applicant at every turn to reduce the amount of parking and will continue to do so. However, the applicant has been insistent on the amount of parking and has relayed that the project is not feasible without this amount of parking spaces. While the City has eliminated minimum parking requirements, there are no maximum parking requirements, so the applicant is able to choose the amount of parking they ﬁnd appropriate for their project. Without intimating that this will occur, staﬀ notes that should the area continue to succeed and land values increase, it becomes more possible that the parking lot (or the entire site) is redeveloped to a higher-density or mixed-use project in the future, and that a restaurant/retail use and parking lot is much more likely to be developed than low- or medium-density residential.

6/4/25, 12:40 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] The City will hold a community meeting for this project, which is now expected in the latter half of March, and I have put you on the list to be notiﬁed when that is ﬁnalized.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Elizabeth Whamond
February 16, 2025 12:48
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Davis, and Councilmember-elect Mulcahy,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan describes the site of the proposed development as an area with “higher- density mixed-use and residential development drawing energy from nearby Downtown San José and the Diridon Station. Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active groundﬂoor retail.”
A single-story, 5,139-square-foot fast-food restaurant does not align with this description. It actively works against the atmosphere an urban village is supposed to foster by encouraging customers to travel by car. This location is right along VTA’s 523/23 bus line and just a few minutes away from light rail by foot.

As is currently proposed, a standalone Chick-ﬁl-A and a large parking lot are not acceptable uses of the extremely 6/4/25, 12:40 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

6/4/25, 12:40 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-02-21 14:31
To 'J Wri' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear J,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

6/4/25, 12:41 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: J Wri
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 13:17
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Davis, and Councilmember-elect Mulcahy,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

As is currently proposed, a standalone Chick-ﬁl-A and a large parking lot are not acceptable uses of the extremely 6/4/25, 12:41 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

Thank you.

6/4/25, 12:41 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-02-21 14:29
To 'damntall' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Bryan,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

6/4/25, 12:40 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: damntall
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 11:59
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal

--------

Bryan Wright
Founder and CEO
Brightshine, Inc.

Phone:

6/4/25, 12:40 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3

Outlook
RE: Chick Fil A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-03 14:27
To 'Diane Hunt' ; District 6 <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>
Hi Diane,
Thanks for your e-mail. Your support of the project is noted, and I note that there will be a community meeting for this project, very likely in late March.

Thanks,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

I support the Chick Fil A project for the following reasons:
6/4/25, 12:47 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

1. The city and community need the tax revenue

2. That parcel has been a blighted for many years and W San Carlos needs to get cleaned up

3. The idea that housing is coming to that property anytime soon is an absolute pipe dream and will not create the same amount of revenue as a thriving, commercial business.

I believe some of the opponents of this development object to the politics of the company, and they are using the planning process to obscure their true motives. I do not support the politics of Chick Fil A and therefore make the choice to not patronize their restaurants.

Sincerely,
Diane Hunt
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 12:47 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Re: Catalyze SV's Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal From Alex Shoor
Date Mon 2025-03-03 15:41
To Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc Jake Wilde

Jason,
Appreciate the update.

At your request, we have not and will not disseminate the info about the date of the meeting until it is posted on your website (though we will tell folks it is anticipated for later this month). We checked this morning and didn’t see it on PBCE’s calendar yet.

Thanks for letting us know when it is posted.
- Alex
--
Alex Shoor
Executive Director | Catalyze SV
www.CatalyzeSiliconValley.org
Get Catalyze SV apparel | Schedule time w/Alex
On Feb 28, 2025, at 4:54 PM, Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Alex,

Thanks again. No worries about pushing us, we understand, and as you know, while decisionmakers (hopefully) weigh staﬀ recommendations, they are not locked into them when making a decision.

I’d say that the heart of a staﬀ recommendation for approval here is that the application is for a commercial project in a commercial designation and a commercial zone with no requirement for a residential component and no objective requirement for a minimum FAR, and we believe that by including the certain aspects of the project that I’ve highlighted, the project generally does meet aspects of the UV Plan vision. I think there are two large issues that are overarching the review of the project – ﬁrst is that the parcel is in the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area, but the
description for the designation explicitly says that it’s meant for commercial and residential uses aren’t required; and second, that there is an FAR encouraged in the UV Plan and the project doesn’t meet it, but staﬀ is saying that because it’s not an objective requirement, there actually is no minimum required FAR. But ultimately, I think the core of staﬀ’s review here is that we believe we can (and frankly, if taking the designation on its own, must) ﬁnd a standalone commercial project in conformance with the UV designation and zone, and on top of that, we believe that the project as implemented will be generally in conformance with UV Plan policies and goals. If we can ﬁnd that, we then can make the ﬁndings and must recommend approval for the project – and again, a decisionmaker can disagree that the ﬁndings can be made.

The community meeting should be the evening of Thursday, March 27 at 6:30 pm on Zoom – but I don’t have conﬁrmation that it’s been noticed yet, so I’d appreciate that you not disseminate that until it is conﬁrmed and posted on the City website, which should be early next week. I’ll send an e-mail out to the Interested Parties list (you both are 6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/5

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] included) when that happens. The purpose is to share information about the project, let people ask questions about the project (and staﬀ/the applicant will respond), and we’ll also collate comment that will be included at a high-level in (since I assume there will be an appeal) an eventual staﬀ report for Planning Commission and City Council. This is obviously coming quite late in the process with the switch in Councilmember for the district, but if people make design suggestions and CFA is willing to take those into account, they can incorporate those as well.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Alex Shoor
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 15:34
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc: Jake Wilde
Subject: Re: Catalyze SV's Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal

Jason,

Thanks for your thoughtful, detailed response. And thank you for sending one to each person who writes in to you.

The things you mention like an outdoor patio, mural by a local artist, and wider sidewalk are all good things that Catalyze SV members like to see! That being said, the expression "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind.

Minor improvements don’t change the fundamental issue: this is a violation of the City’s West San Carlos Urban Village Plan and its General Plan.

Contrary to staﬀ’s claim, this proposal will not only make this area more car-oriented and less like a mixed-use village, it will hamstring, for decades to come, the ability of the land to become something that actually will achieve those goals we all share.

We’re gonna keep pushing you and the City on this, I’m afraid.

Would you mind sharing what your concerns are if the City were to decide to not support this proposal?

Also, when will the community meeting be scheduled and can you share the purpose of it?

I appreciate your professionalism in the face of these disagreements with and critiques from Catalyze SV and others — Alex

--
Alex Shoor
Executive Director | Catalyze SV
www.CatalyzeSiliconValley.org
Get Catalyze SV apparel | Schedule time w/Alex
6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/5

On Feb 21, 2025, at 3:44 PM, Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your e-mail. Obviously, we are all very aware of Catalyze SV’s opposition to the proposed project, and we appreciate your advocacy and involvement in the project, including the shared concern about the well-being of Urban Village Plan areas and the City. As you know, the City must review projects when, where, and how they are submitted. At this time, Chick-ﬁl-A has submitted for a project on this site, and staﬀ must continue to review the ﬁle and bring the project to a hearing, as required by state law. If Chick-ﬁl-A accepts your suggestion and is able to ﬁnd a diﬀerent site and withdraws this application, then we will review that new application.

Regarding the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan generally, staﬀ believes that although the project may not meet the aspirational goals of the UV Plan, the project is on balance consistent with the plan, and meets the vision of the plan. This is a commercial project in a commercial land use designation and zone, and the UV plan does not preclude lower-intensity development on the site. Generally speaking, the UV plan intends to create a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use corridor, and is envisioned as an accessible, well- connected neighborhood and vibrant business district; staﬀ believes that the proposed project, and the improvements which will be conditioned, do help meet these goals, and that buildings of various densities and sizes, including lower-density buildings, can make up the urban fabric of an area, contributing to the streetscape, walkability, and street-level vibrancy of districts.

Speciﬁcally, this project will include an outdoor patio at the corner of West San Carlos and Race to add street-level vibrancy, and we have negotiated for a mural to cover half the building on the West San Carlos side to add pedestrian interest. The project also will be conditioned to create a 20-foot-wide sidewalk on San Carlos and a 15-foot-wide sidewalk on Race, and will enhance pedestrian and traﬃc safety at the San Carlos and Race intersection through a bulb-out. Staﬀ believes that with these features, the project generally conforms to the vision laid out in the UV Plan. Speciﬁcally, by including major pedestrian improvements through widening sidewalks along both frontages, this will allow better access to neighborhood goods and services near this site and beyond (i.e. from the new development at 253 Race to the Safeway and Smart & Final). The project also creates a restaurant on the corner which many residents in and around the urban village will be able to walk to, and visitors in employees from other areas, including downtown, would be able to take transit to. The restaurant would create a private covered outdoor patio, a low-barrier gathering space which can be used by residents and customers, and provide a mural, integrating public art and improving the streetscape. The applicants also plan to work with the Oﬃce of Cultural Aﬀairs to have a local artist design the proposed mural.

With regard to the proposed demolition and parking lot, ultimately, staﬀ must review the project as proposed by an applicant. Staﬀ is considering the project in its entirety in formulating a recommendation, and ultimately, a decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Oﬃcer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.

Staﬀ has encouraged the applicant to reduce the amount of parking, and we will continue to do so. The applicant has stated that the project is not feasible without this amount of parking spaces. Ultimately, the City’s ordinance eliminating minimum parking requirements was intended to give ﬂexibility to developers to choose the amount of parking they ﬁnd appropriate for their project. While staﬀ obviously would not be able to promise that this would happen, should the area continue to succeed and land values increase and the market conditions be correct, it becomes more possible that the site is wholly or partially redeveloped to a higher-density or mixed-use project, and the chance of this occurring on a commercial lot and (especially) a parking lot is much higher than it would be with a low- or medium- density residential project.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/5 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Alex Shoor
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 18:01
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Subject: Catalyze SV's Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal

<image001.png>

To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing to express both my personal opposition and my organization Catalyze SV’s opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street.

On a personal level, this project is at odds with what I want to see in my neighborhood.

From the perspective of Catalyze SV’s members and staﬀ, it is at odds with what we want and San José’s vision for West San Carlos. By now, you have probably received over 30 letters from Catalyze SV stakeholders expressing opposition to Chick-ﬁl-A at this location (not to mention the nearly 1,000 people
who have signed a petition about it). Catalyze SV has scored over 70 projects in the last 7 years and almost never opposes a project.

As someone involved in the community, I can tell you opposition to the Chick-ﬁl-A at this location is growing.

I’m guessing nearly all of us on this email agree that a single-story fast food restaurant that displaces two small businesses is not what the City wants on San Carlos Street.

Allow me to address a question that might be on some city oﬃcials minds: “Well, something is better than nothing.”
This is not a binary question. If you want to allow Chick-ﬁl-A to operate locations in San Jose, then for God sake’s, let’s encourage Chick-ﬁl-A to occupy one of the many existing yet empty commercial spaces in San Jose! Catalyze SV has speciﬁcally suggested one location at the corner of Julian St and The Alameda that used to be occupied by a Starbucks and is on a vibrant commercial street.

Why can’t Chick-ﬁl-A locate somewhere like that?

It could be a win-win-win for the company, the city, and the community.

We’re happy to brainstorm with the City and Chick-ﬁl-A other locations. I’m sure Michael Mulcahy knows many as well.

Meanwhile, the site on West San Carlos is part of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. The Plan describes the site of the proposed development as an area with “higher-density mixed-use and residential development drawing energy from nearby Downtown San José and the Diridon Station. 6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 4/5

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

Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active groundﬂoor retail.”

A single-story, 5,139-square-foot fast-food restaurant does not align with this description. It actively works against the atmosphere an urban village is supposed to foster by encouraging customers to travel by car. This location is right along VTA’s 523/23 bus line and just a few minutes away from light rail by foot.

Additionally, construction of the larger parking lot detailed in the proposal would require displacing two existing local businesses. This new restaurant should not need a parking lot larger than the one that supported the previous fast-food establishment that occupied the corner of this site. Why displace two small local, established businesses in favor of a large national corporation?

If the City of San Jose collaborates with the community to create urban village plans and then we don’t follow them, it undermines not only the City, it also undermines all the community investment in that process you created.

The community has placed a lot of faith in the urban village process — if you violate it now, you break trust with your residents.

As always, Catalyze SV is happy to talk with city staﬀ or other parties about this.

Take good care — Alex
--
Alex Shoor
Executive Director | Catalyze SV
www.CatalyzeSiliconValley.org
Get Catalyze SV apparel | Schedule time w/Alex

6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 5/5 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street]
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-03-07 15:32
To 'Loui Tucker'
Hi Loui,

Just for information, the applicant for this ﬁle is a consulting company on behalf of Chick-ﬁl-A. Their representatives (and CFA’s representatives) will be at the community meeting. I’ve heard second-hand that the owner of the parcel (current landlord) will also be at the meeting, but I haven’t been able to speak to him and don’t have conﬁrmation of this.

Again, regardless of tenure (rental, ownership, etc.), ultimately it is Chick-ﬁl-A that wishes to be part of the community and ultimately must convince a decisionmaker/decision-making body to agree to that.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 14:13
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street]

And there's the crux: the plan changes if the applicant wants to change it. Will he even be at the meeting? He doesn't live in the neighborhood, he wants money via a long-term lease rather than sell, and he thinks the Chik- Fil-e will give him what he wants. I doubt what our neighborhood wants or needs will not matter to him.

Loui
On 3/4/2025 6:59 PM, Lee, Jason wrote:

Hi Loui,
6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/4

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

Any decision on whether any plan changes are made as a result of the community meeting would be made by the applicant. In any event, when this gets to hearing, staﬀ will lay out everything in the permit/staﬀ report, and generally, the permit will include how staﬀ believes the project meets the required ﬁndings, whether this be the General/UV Plan, Tree Removal, Design Standards, etc. At a hearing, decisionmakers do not have to follow staﬀ recommendation; while they will consider it, if they do not believe the project meets the requirements, they can rewrite the permit so that the ﬁndings are not made and overturn staﬀ recommendation.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 2:43 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street]

Do you realize that, according to the drawings I have seen, about half those trees are going to be bordering the parking lot? Why do they have to be removed. They are not near the building. And the building *could* be constructed 10 feet farther to the east so the trees are not in the way. It seems the developer/owner/City really just wants those trees cut down and make adjustments to make sure that happens.

I am sure this will come up at the community meeting. Which - by the way - is NOT going to change anything. And you know it.

Loui
On 3/3/2025 2:09 PM, Lee, Jason wrote:

Hi Loui,

In short, this happened because of the adoption of Urban Village and Mixed-Use zoning districts in 2021. This isn’t a special request, and this is not the only parcel or part of the City where this is happening due to redevelopment. 6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/4

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

Basically, prior conventional zonings had minimum setback requirements – sometimes zero, but up to 12.5 feet in commercial zoning districts. However, these were minimum setbacks, so buildings could be (for example) 30 feet from the property line and it wouldn’t be an issue. In parcels that adopted the UV/Mixed-Use zoning districts, the development standards changed so that there are maximum ten-foot front and side setbacks – so buildings must be within ten feet of the property line.

The result of this is that trees planted in the previous minimum setback (or between the building and the property line) are now within portions of the lot which have become part of the required building envelope (or close enough to a new building that they would not survive construction), and therefore, need to be removed in order to for the new building to meet the new development standards.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 13:54
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street]

Jason -
So the City changed the requirements so the trees can be removed? Why would they do that? Why would they want to facilitate the removal of healthy trees? Did the developer request this chage? Please explain the City's change om the setback.

Loui
On 3/3/2025 11:14 AM, Lee, Jason wrote:

Hi Loui,
The community meeting is 95% set for March 27, but there is still a slight chance of a delay of that date, so I would appreciate if that were not distributed until it’s posted on the City’s website and I send out an e-mail to the Interested Parties list (which you are on). I expect ﬁnal conﬁrmation by Wednesday, but it may be Thursday. 6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/4

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

I haven’t been out to the site since November, but I’ll go take a look at some point in the next two weeks. Based on what I saw previously, I don’t believe I would be able to go against the submitted arborist report, but I can see if the City Arborist wants to get involved – generally speaking, the City Arborist only looks at and makes determinations on trees on public property and does not look at trees on private property except in extremely extraordinary circumstances. I’ll still note that the removal of quite a few of the trees along the property line (and frankly, the healthier trees closer to San Carlos) is because of the City switching the parcel from
minimum setback requirements to maximum
setback requirements; this switch by deﬁnition
causes tree-building conﬂicts upon redevelopment,
since trees were previously placed in a setback which the City now would allow (or even require) new projects to encroach.

6/4/25, 12:49 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 4/4 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No low density Chick-Fil-A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-10 10:11
To 'Kolumban Boesch'
Hi Kolumban,

Thanks for your e-mail. Please note that this is a private development project, and by State law, the City must review projects when, where, and how they are submitted, and take them to hearing (regardless of staﬀ recommending approval or denial) if requested by an applicant.

While the aspiration of the plan is to have this area as higher-density mixed use, staﬀ believes the plan does not preclude lower-intensity uses – this is ultimately a commercial project proposed in a commercial land use designation and commercial zone, which does not require residential uses, nor does it require a minimum density.

Staﬀ also has been working with the applicant to meet the Urban Village goals through pedestrian (sidewalk and intersection) improvements, street-level vibrancy (a mural and an outdoor patio on the corner), and better connect the neighborhood near and beyond the site.

Ultimately, a decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Oﬃcer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. I’ll also note that there will be a community meeting on this project the evening of March 27, at 6:30 pm. More information on the community meeting is here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/4953.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Kolumban Boesch
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 20:45
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: No low density Chick-Fil-A

6/4/25, 12:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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 Hello

The San Carlos location for Chick- Fil-a is a terrible use of land. It is I supposed to be high density, as in the master plan. While I don’t share my values with this organization , it could be possible having a ground ﬂow business with lots of housing above.

Please serve the people of San Jose over a corporation.

Thanks

Kolumban Boesch

SHPNA member
Only when it is dark enough can you see the stars” -Martin Luther King Jr

Take good care of each other ❄❤

6/4/25, 12:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Support for Chick-Fil-A at 1301 West San Carlos Street From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-03-11 10:21
To 'Wish Boi'
Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail. Your support of this project is noted. Staﬀ notes that should the project be approved, it will be conditioned to provide wider sidewalks along both project frontages. In addition, the project is currently undergoing a Local Transportation Analysis to identify traﬃc impacts, and identiﬁed impacts will be mitigated through permit conditions.

A decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Oﬃcer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. I’ll also note that there will be a community meeting on this project the evening of March 27, at 6:30 pm. More information on the community meeting is here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/4953.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Wish Boi
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 8:42 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Chick-Fil-A at 1301 West San Carlos Street

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Mr. Lee,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Chick-Fil-A development at 1301 West San Carlos Street at the corner of Race. I believe this addition will bring positive economic benefits to the area, 6/4/25, 12:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. provide more dining options, and serve as a convenient choice for residents and visitors.

While some have concerns about traffic congestion, I believe that with proper planning and traffic management solutions, this development can successfully integrate into the neighborhood. Businesses like Chick-Fil-A attract customers and drive local commerce, contributing to the overall growth of our community.

I encourage the city to allow this project to move forward and look forward to seeing this new addition in our neighborhood.

6/4/25, 12:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Re: CHICK-FIL-A
From M. Alexx
Date Sat 2025-03-15 05:30
To Lee, Jason <[email protected]>

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

Thank you for the prompt reply. I would appreciate notice of further action on this matter.

Maureen
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 5:51 PM Lee, Jason <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Maureen,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition is noted, especially regarding displacement and the suitability of the site.

Regarding trees, I will note that some of the tree removals would take place for any project on this parcel because of the City’s request for wider sidewalks along both San Carlos and Race, and also because of the City’s shift from minimum setbacks to maximum setbacks at this site.

I will note that if and when this project goes to hearing, you will be able to comment at those hearings prior to a decision being made for the project. I have put you on the Interested Parties list for notiﬁcation when the project goes to hearing.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

6/4/25, 12:51 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

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

From: M. Alexx
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 12:15
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: CHICK-FIL-A

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Mr. Lee:

I'm unable to attend the public meeting on March 27, but want to express my opposition to erecting a new Chick-Fil-A restaurant at the intersection of West San Carlos & Race Streets.

That site, even if expanded to include the small site next door, is not suitable for a busy restaurant & parking lot. Further, I cannot support destruction of the established taqueria & salon businesses, along with removal of all existing trees, that would be required to accommodate Chick-Fil-A.

Chick-Fil-A is yet another chain store that would add nothing of value to the midtown area, while causing disruption, further crowding, & increased traﬃc.

Thank you for considering my position.

Maureen Alexander

6/4/25, 12:51 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Chick-Fil-e letter to residents March 14 2025
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-03-14 18:08
To 'Loui Tucker'
Hi Loui,

I did conﬁrm this ﬂyer came from Chick-ﬁl-A. Obviously, it was not sent in conjunction with the City, and I will clarify again that the project is not approved at this time, the Community Meeting is still on for the 27th, and a decision on the project will be made at a future Director’s Hearing (and potentially at Planning Commission or City Council on appeal).

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 15:40
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chick-Fil-e letter to residents March 14 2025

If you read the letter **all the way to the end on the second page on the last line* it does say that the project has not been given ﬁnal aporival. I think it's pretty deceptive and snarky of them to send this letter out because it makes it look like the project is approved until you get to the very last line of the letter. Typical tactics

Loui
From: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 1:28:47 PM
To: Loui Tucker
Subject: RE: Chick-Fil-e letter to residents March 14 2025

6/4/25, 12:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] 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.

Hi Loui,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. They do not have a Planning permit at this time and the project still needs to be approved at a public hearing. I’ll contact Christine.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 11:17
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Chick-Fil-e letter to residents March 14 2025

Jason -
Read the attached letter we received in the mail today.

The letter appears to say that Chick-Fil-E has a permit to build on the old Burger King Lot, that it's a done deal.

And we are supposed to have a community meeting on March 27 that might impact the opening? Chick-Fil-e seems to think not.

Comments?
Loui Tucker

6/4/25, 12:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: File # H24-046, ER24-195
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-17 10:37
To 'Gary Archer'
Hi Gary –

I’m not sure if you are aware, but I failed to note that there will be a community meeting on this project next Thursday over Zoom. Meeting information is here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/4953.

Also, I’ll put you on the list for further notiﬁcations (i.e. if and when the project is scheduled for hearing).

Thanks again,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Lee, Jason
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 09:51
To: 'Gary
Subject: RE: File # H24-046, ER24-195

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your comments. Chick-ﬁl-A is not proposing a drive-through for this store. Instead, Chick-ﬁl-A is planning to put two driveways on the property, both oﬀ Race Street. Public Works has informed me that the driveway closer to San Carlos should be right-in/right-out only, and the driveway closer to the new residential project will be full-access (all turns allowed). As there is no drive-through, people will need to park. The City Council eliminated minimum parking requirements Citywide in December of 2022, so there is no longer a parking minimum that we can enforce; however, the project as currently proposed includes 62 parking spaces. The old parking requirement for the site and the proposed use was 37 spaces, so they are providing over 1.5x the amount required under the old code.

Regarding the old Race Street Fish & Poultry site, the vehicular access to the new buildings is from Grand Avenue.

There is no vehicular access to the parking garage from Race Street.

Thanks,
Jason
6/4/25, 12:52 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Gary Archer
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2025 14:42
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: File # H24-046, ER24-195

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Re: Proposed Chick-Fil-A at 1301 West San Carlos Street

I feel that this will impact traffic on Race Street. When the Carls Jr. was there, there were times that traffic on its drive-through would go into the street. I’ve seen traffic backups happen at the near by Chick-Fil-A as well as the one in Almaden.

Additionally, once the two new high rises where Race Street Fish & Poultry was open, these two will cause additional traffic adding to the problem caused by Chick-Fil-A.

This will be an absolute nightmare for traffic at an already narrow street as the traffic and congestion the Chick-Fil-A drive thru will cause, it will make the two lane street virtually impassable.

Regards Gary,

Gary Archer

6/4/25, 12:52 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Opposition to new Chic-Fil-A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-17 09:31
To 'Antonia Mora'
Hi Antonia,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition is noted, especially regarding displacement and the suitability of the site.

If and when this project goes to hearing, you will be able to comment at those hearings prior to a decision being made for the project. I have put you on the Interested Parties list for notiﬁcation when the project goes to hearing.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Antonia Mora
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2025 13:48
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to new Chic-Fil-A

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I'm unable to attend the public meeting on March 27, but want to express my opposition to erecting a new Chick- Fil-A restaurant at the intersection of West San Carlos & Race Streets.

That site, even if expanded to include the small site next door, is not suitable for a busy restaurant & parking lot. 6/4/25, 12:51 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Further, I cannot support destruction of the established taqueria & salon businesses, along with removal of all existing trees, that would be required to accommodate Chick-Fil-A.

Chick-Fil-A is yet another chain store that would add nothing of value to the midtown area, while causing disruption, further crowding, & increased traffic.

Thank you for considering my position.

6/4/25, 12:51 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: 1301 West San Carlos Street: File No. H24-0246
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-17 13:27
To '[email protected]'
Cc 'Garnetta Annable'
Hi George –
I’m not sure if you are aware, but I failed to note that there will be a community meeting on this project next Thursday over Zoom. Meeting information is here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/4953.

Also, I’ll put you on the list for further notifications (i.e. if and when the project is scheduled for hearing).

Thanks again,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

Cc: Garnetta Annable
San Carlos Street: File No. H24-0246
Hi George,
Thanks for your e-mail. The last plan set I have has 62 parking spaces in the parking lot. Eduardo's would be demolished with this proposal. Although minimum parking requirements were removed in December of 2022, I did compare this proposal to the old parking code, and that required 37 spaces for this project at this site, so they are providing more than 1.5x the spaces required in the prior code.

For the red curbing, since this is an existing problem: I checked with our DOT plan reviewers, and they think that the question is best addressed to the Traffic Safety team, and they believe that that team 6/4/25, 12:52 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

includes someone who deals with red curbing generally for existing businesses. Their e-mail is [email protected], and I believe their phone number is 408-535-3850. If they're not the right people, they should be able to better direct you on who to contact or if this is possible.

Thanks,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
-----Original Message-----
From: George Slough
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 12:42
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc: Garnetta Annable
Subject: 1301 West San Carlos Street: File No. H24-0246 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
I am the owner of 260 & 262 Race Street across the street from the above project. I am concerned about adequate parking for the Chick-Fil-A project. Parking is already inadequate on Race Street. Often the drive ways that service my property are partially blocked by vehicles dashing to the Mexican restaurant across the street from my property.

Please advise the number of parking spaces on the project site.

Also advise if the curb between my driveways can be marked red or at least the area within 5 feet of my driveways so that Chick-Fil-A customers will not be blocking my drive ways.

Thank you,
George Slough
6/4/25, 12:52 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

Sloughs Bike Shoppe

message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 12:52 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Chick-fil-A project at 1301 W San Carlos Street (File No. H24-046) From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 17:32
To 'deb codiroli'
Hi Deb,

I think I’d just say that the project will go to a decision-maker and staﬀ’s recommendation is not ﬁnal. As you’ve observed, staﬀ at this point is very likely to recommend approval of the project (we’ve spent a lot of time considering the project, and quite frankly, it’s a commercial project in a commercial designation and commercial zone, with no required minimum ﬂoor area ratio). However, this does not mean a decision-maker (the Director/Hearing Oﬃcer at Director’s Hearing or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal) must follow staﬀ’s recommendation – basically, staﬀ only recommends to a decision-maker, and the decision-maker would consider staﬀ recommendation, public input, public testimony, etc. in order to make a decision.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: deb codiroli
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:57 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chick-ﬁl-A project at 1301 W San Carlos Street (File No. H24-046)

Thanks for the response though it seems like the city has already made up their mind. Very disappointing, but I will not give up trying.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 4:47 PM Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Deb,

6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Thank you for your e-mail and comments, and I am appreciative of your concerns. I am cc’ing Kara Hawkins, the environmental review planner, on this response, so she can see the comments about traﬃc congestion and safety.

I’ll note that the entrances to the site are both along Race Street (with two driveways required for service vehicle circulation), and the driveway closest to San Carlos will be right-in/right-out only. There are no entrances/exits on San Carlos. The project will also be required to extend the corners on the northern side of San Carlos for pedestrian safety purposes, and will provide monetary contributions to the City for future protected bike lanes along both project frontages. The project includes a 62-space parking lot. While the City has eliminated minimum parking requirements, the minimum parking requirement under the old zoning code was 37 spaces, so they are providing more than 150% of the previous minimum requirement.

Regarding the concerns over the demolition of the existing building and displacement of existing businesses, as well as the character of the applicant: Staﬀ is beholden to review all projects agnostic of the applicant, taking into account the required permit ﬁndings (i.e. land use and environmental matters) to form a recommendation on the project. This application is a Site Development Permit which includes the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building and landscape improvements, and staﬀ must, under state law, consider the project as it has been submitted to the City. Should the Site Development Permit be approved, it would theoretically permit only the construction of the building; because of the zoning of the site, a restaurant of any sort (including Chick-ﬁl-A) would then be allowed to move into that building without further Planning permits as a permitted use. Obviously, Chick-ﬁl-A is the applicant and the project has been designed to operate as a Chick-ﬁl-A, but in theory, once the structure is built, it could house any permitted use in the UV zoning district without a further permit.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: deb codiroli
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 4:35 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Chick-ﬁl-A project at 1301 W San Carlos Street (File No. H24-046)

Hello,

I am unable to attend the community meeting on 3/27/2025 to express my opposition to the Chick-ﬁl-A project proposal on W San Carlos Street. I have three major concerns about this project:

1) Increased Traffic Congestion and Safety Risks:
6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

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

The introduction of a high-traffic business at this location will significantly impact an already busy corridor. San Carlos Street is a vital thoroughfare with limited capacity to accommodate the influx of customers, delivery vehicles, and rideshare services that a Chick-fil-A will generate. The restaurant’s popularity means increased vehicle activity during peak hours, leading to congestion that could impact adjacent businesses and residential streets. Pedestrian and cyclist safety is at risk, as higher traffic volumes increase the likelihood of accidents, especially in an area that is designed for walkability.

Insufficient parking and overflow issues may force customers to park in nearby residential streets, creating an inconvenience for local residents.
2) Community and Small Business Impact:

The introduction of a national fast-food chain to this corridor could have lasting consequences for the small businesses that define our neighborhood such as:
a. The presence of a Chick-fil-A will displace locally owned businesses that have served the community for years.
b. A fast-food chain in this space will undermine the character of West San Carlos, which thrives on small, independent businesses rather than large corporate establishments. c. Economic studies in similar areas have shown that local businesses reinvest more revenue into the community than national chains, making this proposal a potential long-term loss for our neighborhood’s economy.

3) Chick-fil-A's stance on the LGBTQ+ community does not align with the values of such an accepting population as San Jose has for the LGBTQ+ community. We have to stand up and demand our businesses do better and represent the community they plan to set business up within.

Thank you!
Deb Codiroli

6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3

Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 16:28
To 'Kathryn Hedges' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Kathryn,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your continued opposition to the project is noted. Please see below for a slightly updated version of staﬀ’s response to this e-mail.

Regarding the proposed demolition and parking lot, and the project generally, ultimately, a private developer has proposed the project in this manner, and staﬀ must review and formulate a recommendation on the project as proposed. Ultimately, a decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Oﬃcer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom on March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Kathryn Hedges
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:53 AM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

As is currently proposed, a standalone Chick-ﬁl-A and a large parking lot are not acceptable uses of the extremely limited land where higher-density, mixed-use development is allowed and needed in San José. 6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

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

Kathryn Hedges
Sole Proprietor, Splendid Colors
www.splendidcolors.com
CA Certifications: SB,SP-PW #2024613

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 16:34
To 'Lori Jain' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Lori,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

Please note that the City will hold a community meeting on Zoom on March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Lori Jain
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 8:29 PM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

The Chick-ﬁl-A proposal as currently planned belongs in Phoenix not San Jose.

Respectfully,
Lori Jain

6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 15:40
To 'Shannon Knepper' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Shannon,

Thank you for your e-mail. Your opposition to the project is noted, and I appreciate and understand your concerns.

Staﬀ is beholden to review all projects agnostic of the applicant, taking into account the required permit ﬁndings (i.e. land use and environmental matters) to form a recommendation on the project. This application is a Site Development Permit which includes the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building and landscape improvements, and staﬀ must, under state law, consider the project submitted. Approval of a Site Development Permit would permit only the construction of the building, and because of the zoning of the site, a restaurant of any sort would then be allowed to move into that building without further Planning permits as a permitted use. Chick-ﬁl-A is the applicant and it’s designed to operate as a Chick-ﬁl-A, but in theory, once the structure is built, it could house any permitted use in the UV zoning district without a further permit.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Shannon Knepper
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 10:29 AM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]> 6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

The design opposes San Jose's desire for more walkability, but..let's be honest. Chic-ﬁl-A stands for homophobia.

Is that the kind of San Jose we want? Do we want to support the Chic-ﬁl-A's and the Walmarts of the world? our do we want to support our Mom and Pop shops, like Eduardo's (which, personally, has some of the best tacos in the city). Especially in today's climate...make the right choice and do NOT allow chic-ﬂ-a to build here. stand up for what is right.

Sincerely,
Shannon
Mom, DTSJ resident, Horace Mann Elementary Teacher & SJSU student

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 15:04
To 'Victoria Partida' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Victoria,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Victoria Partida
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 8:56 AM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Cc: Doan, Bien <[email protected]>
Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

As is currently proposed, a standalone Chick-ﬁl-A and a large parking lot are not acceptable uses of the extremely 6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 16:26
To 'Francesca Pollock' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>
Dear Francesca,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Francesca Pollock
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:52 AM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]> Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

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

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 16:32
To 'Robert Wood' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>
Dear Robert,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your continued opposition to the project is noted. Please see below for staﬀ’s updated response to this letter. Staﬀ also notes that there are no minimum or maximum parking requirements for any use, including both residential and commercial uses. Staﬀ certainly has encouraged the applicant to reduce the amount of parking provided, but under the current code, applicants are allowed to propose as much or as little parking as they see ﬁt for a project.

Nevertheless, staﬀ has encouraged the applicant at every turn to reduce the amount of parking and will continue to do so. However, the applicant has been insistent on the amount of parking and has relayed that the project is not feasible without this amount of parking spaces. While the City has eliminated minimum parking requirements, there are no maximum parking requirements, so the applicant is able to choose the amount of parking they ﬁnd appropriate for their project. Without intimating that this will occur, staﬀ notes that should the area continue to succeed and land values increase, it becomes more possible that the parking lot (or the entire site) is redeveloped 6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] to a higher-density or mixed-use project in the future, and that a restaurant/retail use and parking lot is much more likely to be developed than low- or medium-density residential.

The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom on March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Robert Wood
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]> Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

This suggests our rules for considering business expansion are in need of change. We limit parking requirements for housing, but we encourage unlimited expansion of parking for business.

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

6/4/25, 12:53 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Thu 2025-03-20 16:34
To 'tessa woodmansee' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Tessa,
Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

Staff notes the description of the Character Area definition of the project site; however, the allowable land use is controlled by the Land Use Designation portion of the document. This is a commercial project on a commercial-designated and commercial-zoned parcel that does not have a required minimum density. While the description allows for higher-density uses and the project does not meet some of the aspirational goals of the plan, lower-density uses are not precluded in Urban Villages, and can still fit within the urban fabric of a higher-density area by contributing to the streetscape, walkability, and street-level vibrancy of districts.

Staff has worked with the applicant to include elements in the project that would meet the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan goals by encouraging pedestrian access to the site and beyond, including widening both the San Carlos and Race sidewalks on the project site and making pedestrian and traffic safety improvements to the San Carlos and Race intersection. If approved and built, the project will also include a mural on the San Carlos frontage to integrate public art and contribute to the streetscape, and will create an outdoor patio on the corner to enhance pedestrian vibrancy through a low-barrier gathering space. Staff also notes that nothing prevents nearby residents from walking to the site, nor would it prevent residents from other areas, including Downtown, or employees from taking transit to the site.

Regarding the proposed demolition and parking lot, and the project generally, ultimately, a private developer has proposed the project in this manner, and staff must review and formulate a recommendation on the project as proposed. Ultimately, a decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Officer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.

Nevertheless, staff has encouraged the applicant at every turn to reduce the amount of parking and will continue to do so. However, the applicant has been insistent on the amount of parking and has relayed that the project is not feasible without this amount of parking spaces. While the City has eliminated minimum parking requirements, there are no maximum parking requirements, so the applicant is able to 6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

choose the amount of parking they find appropriate for their project. Without intimating that this will occur, staff notes that should the area continue to succeed and land values increase, it becomes more possible that the parking lot (or the entire site) is redeveloped to a higher-density or mixed-use project in the future, and that a restaurant/retail use and parking lot is much more likely to be developed than low- or medium-density residential.

The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom on March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235 Thank you,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887
City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
-----Original Message-----
From: tessa woodmansee
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Subject: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-fil-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood. 6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan describes the site of the proposed development as an area with “higher-density mixed-use and residential development drawing energy from nearby Downtown San José and the Diridon Station. Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active groundfloor retail.” A single-story, 5,139-square-foot fast-food restaurant does not align with this description. It actively works against the atmosphere an urban village is supposed to foster by encouraging customers to travel by car. This location is right along VTA’s 523/23 bus line and just a few minutes away from light rail by foot.

As is currently proposed, a standalone Chick-fil-A and a large parking lot are not acceptable uses of the extremely limited land where higher-density, mixed-use development is allowed and needed in San José.

Regards,
Tessa woodmansee
San Jose
Sent from my iPad
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3

Outlook
RE: Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-03-21 09:19
To 'Mark Bett'
Cc Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Quevedo, Matthew <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]> Hi Mark,
Thank you for this message. City staff (and the applicant) are very aware of this petition, and thank you for formally submitting it into the record. I will archive it as public comment to decisionmakers and the final project record when this project goes to hearing.

Thanks again,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

Please note that below is a petition that we started in opposition to this project, we have more than 1600 certain parts finally petition, and they’re still collecting more signatures every day. We would like this petition, entered into the public record and formally ask that when it comes time to collect an archive that this is accessed and preserved as part of the public comment record https://chng.it/qXtXdqwWNL
Thanks!
Mark B
BVNA President
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 12:54 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 S t a r t a p e t i t i o n
S i g n p e t i t i o n
2 , 8 1 7
V e r i fi e d s i g n a t u r e s
Ki r s t e n C o r d e r o • 2 5 s e c o n d s a g o Y a n i Z u n i g a • 6 m i n u t e s a g o Ke v i n R e y n o s o • 9 m i n u t e s a g o D e c i s i o n M a k e r s : E v a n L o w + 4
6 S u p p o r t e r V o i c e s
7 U p d a t e s
R e s p e c t U r b a n Vi l l a g e P l a n s a n d E n s u r e R e s p o n s i b l e R e d e v e l o p m e n t i n S a n J o s e 6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 1/11 3 M e d i a M e n t i o n s
T h e I s s u e
A s r e s i d e n t s d e e p l y c o n c e r n e d a b o ut t h e i n t r i c a t e f a b r i c o f o ur c o m m u ni t y , w e a r e d i s t u r b e d b y t h e p l a n s t o t e a r d o w n a n u m b e r o f l o c a l b u s i ne s s t o m a k e w a y f o r a C hi c k - fi l - A r e s t a ur a nt .

T h e p r o j e c t w o u l d o c c u p y a 1 . 1 - a c r e s i t e a t W e s t S a n C a r l o s S t r e e t a nd R a c e S t r e e t ; t he r e s t a u r a n t w o u l d t o t a l s l i g h t l y o v e r 5 , 1 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t a nd w o u l d s e a t 7 8 p e o p l e .

T h e r e s t a u r a n t ' s e s t a b l i s h m e n t i s n o t i n a l i g nm e n t w i t h o ur ur b a n v i l l a g e p l a n t ha t p r o m o t e s s u s t a i n a b l e g r o w t h a n d d e v e l o p m e nt. T h i s p r o j e c t e nc o u r a g e s r e l i a nc e o n a ut o m o b i l e s , c o n t r a d i c t i n g o u r c i t y ' s l o n g - t e r m g o a l s w h i c h f o c us e s o n p e d e s t r i a n- f r i e n d l y e n v i r o n m e n t a n d a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o t he A m e r i c a n P u b l i c T r a ns p o r t a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , c i t i e s t h a t e n c o u r a g e n o n - a uto t r a v e l ha v e f e w e r t r a ffi c f a t a l i t i e s .

M o r e o v e r , t h e i n t r u s i o n o f a n o t h e r f a s t f o o d j o i nt s q ua n d e r s t he g o l d e n o p p o r t un i t y o f c r e a t i n g m o r e h i g h - d e n s i t y h o u s i ng , w hi c h i s v i t a l i n a d d r e s s i ng t he ho usi ng c r i s i s a ff e c t i ng m a n y o f o u r c i t i e s t o d a y . T h e N a t i o na l M u l t i f a m i l y H o u s i ng C o u n c i l a ffi r m s t ha t hi g h - d e nsi t y h o u s i n g c a n h e l p c l o s e t h i s g a p , b o l s t e r a ff o r d a b l e h o usi n g o p t i o n s , a nd i nc r e a s e d i v e r s i t y i n o u r c o m m u n i t i e s .

T h i s C i t y c o n t i n u e s t o a p p r o v e h i g h - r i s e h i g h- d e n s i t y ho us i n g t h a t l o o m s o v e r s i ng l e f a m i l y h o m e s , b u t t h e n a p p r o v e s p r o j e c t l i k e t hi s t h a t s q ua n d e r a m a z i ng o p p o r t uni t i e s t o b ui l d m i x e d - u s e p r o j e c t s t h a t c o u l d p r o m o t e c o m m e r c i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l o p p o r t un i t i e s o n hi g h- c a p a c i t y a r t e r i a l s t h a t h a v e e x t e n s i v e a c c e s s t o p u b l i c t r a n s i t ; t h i s p r o p e r t y i s i n w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e f r o m D i r a d o n S t a t i o n , V T A l i g h t - r a i l , V T A B us , b i k e - s h a r e , a n d o t he r t r a ns i t o p t i o n s b ut i n s t e a d a r e p u s h i n g f o r a m a s s i v e p a r k i n g l o t .

T h i s p e t i t i o n i s a b o u t i n fl u e n c i n g c ha n g e , a nd e n s ur i ng t h e f ut u r e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f o ur c o m m u n i t y . W e n e e d o u r c i t y ' s p l a nne r s a n d d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s t o a d he r e t o t he ur b a n v i l l a g e p l a n t h a t r e s p e c t s t h e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n e c o n o m i c g r o w t h a n d m a i nta i ni ng t he h e a r t a nd s o ul o f o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d . I t i s c r u c i a l t ha t w e a s a c o m m u n i t y v o i c e o u r c o nc e r ns a nd no t l e t a f a s t - f o o d f r a n c h i s e d i c t a t e o u r e x p e r i e nc e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y .

T h e B V N A h a s f o r m a l l y t a k e n a n o p p o s i t i o n s t a n c e o n th i s p r o j e c t . h t t p s : / / w w w . b v n a s j . o r g / p o s t / b v n a - o p p o s e s - p r o j e c t - h 2 4 - 0 4 6 - n a v i g a t i n g - t h e - g a p - b e t w e e n - v i s i o n - a n d - p r o p o s a l - i n - s a n - j o s e - s - w e s t- s a n 1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
S i g n p e t i t i o n
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 2/11 T h e W e s t S a n C a r l o s U r b a n V i l l a g e P l a n e n v i s i o ns a r e j uv e n a t e d c o r r i d o r c ha r a c t e r i z e d b y p e d e s t r i a n - f r i e n d l y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , t r a ns i t - o r i e n t e d d e s i g n , a nd a v i b r a nt b l e nd o f r e s i d e nti a l a n d c o m m e r c i a l s p a c e s . H o w e v e r , a s o utl i n e d i n v a r i o us s o u r c e s , no t a b l y t he f e e d b a c k p r o v i d e d i n t h e c o m m e n t l e t t e r c o n c e r n i ng p r o j e c t H 2 4 - 0 4 6 f e a t u r i n g a p r o p o s e d C hi c k - fi l - A e s t a b l i s h m e n t , t h e r e f r e q u e n t l y e x i s t s a n o t a b l e d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n t h i s i d e a l i s t i c v i s i o n a nd t he a c t u a l c o n t e n t o f d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l s .

C l a s h i n g V i s i o n s : T h e P r o j e c t ' s I n c o m p a t i b i l i ty w i th th e U r b a n V i l l a g e P l a n

A t t h e h e a r t o f t h e B V N A ' s o p p o s i t i o n l i e s t he c o nte n t i o n t ha t t he p r o j e c t c o ntr a d i c t s t he f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e W e s t S a n C a r l o s U r b a n V i l l a g e P l a n. T h e B V N A a r g ue s t h a t e v e n w i t h o u t a d r i v e - t h r o u g h , t h e p r o p o s e d C hi c k - fi l - A e m b o d i e s a c a r - c e n t r i c a p p r o a c h t ha t u n d e r m i n e s t h e p l a n ' s g o a l s o f p r o m o t i n g w a l k i n g , b i k i ng , a n d t r a ns i t use .

T r a ffi c T r o u b l e s : A m p l i f y i n g E x i s t i n g C o n g e s ti o n C o n c e r n s

T h e B V N A e x p r e s s e s c o n c e r n s t h a t t he p r o j e c t w i l l e x a c e r b a t e e x i s t i ng t r a ffi c i s s ue s i n t he a r e a , g i v e n i t s p r o x i m i t y t o a V T A l i g ht r a i l s t a t i o n, m a s s t r a n s i t o p t i o ns, a nd h i g h- d e nsi t y h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s , t h i s p r o j e c t s h o u l d t r a n s f o r m i n t o a m i x e d u s e p r o j e c t t ha t f o c us e s o n p e d e s t r i a n s r a t h e r t h a n c a r s a n d t h a t w e s ho u l d p r i o r i t i z e s o l u t i o ns t h a t r e d u c e c a r d e p e n d e n c y a n d s u p p o r t t h e c i t y ' s e ff o r t s t o e nc o u r a g e r e s i d e n t s t o g e t o ut o f t he i r c a r s .

E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s : T h e L o s s o f T r e e s a n d B e y o n d

T h e B V N A i d e n t i fi e s t h e r e m o v a l o f m a t ur e t r e e s a s a " s i g n i fi c a n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l l o s s , " e m p h a s i z i n g t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e f o r a i r q u a l i t y , t e m p e r a t u r e r e g u l a t i o n, a nd w i l d l i f e ha b i t a t . T hi s c o n c e r n a l i g n s w i t h a g r o w i n g a w a r e n e s s o f t h e e c o l o g i c a l v a l ue o f m a t ur e t r e e s i n ur b a n e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d t h e n e e d t o p r e s e r v e t he m w h e ne v e r p o s s i b l e . T h e l e t t e r a l s o c a l l s f o r a " t h o r o u g h a s s e s s m e n t " o f t h e p r o j e c t ' s o v e r a l l e n v i r o n m e nt a l i m p a c t , i n c l ud i ng f a c t o r s l i k e n o i s e p o l l u t i o n a n d s t o r m w a t e r r u no ff . T h i s d e m a nd f o r c o m p r e he n s i v e a na l y s i s r e fl e c t s o ur d e s i r e t o e n s u r e t h a t n e w d e v e l o p m e nt d o e s n ' t c o m e a t t he e x p e n s e o f t he n e i g hb o r ho o d ' s e n v i r o n m e n t a l w e l l - b e i n g .

A M i s s e d O p p o r t u n i t y : T h e B V N A ' s C a l l f o r A l te r n a ti v e A p p r o a c h e s

T h e B V N A c o n c l u d e s b y u r g i n g t h e c i t y t o p r i o r i t i z e p r o j e c t s t h a t a l i g n w i t h t h e U r b a n V i l l a g e P l a n ' s v i s i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d C hi c k - fi l - A r e p r e s e n t s a m i s s e d o p p o r t un i t y t o p ur s ue d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t e n h a n c e s t h e n e i g h b o r ho o d ' s c ha r a c t e r , s up p o r t s l o c a l b u s i ne s s e s , a n d c o n t r i b u t e s t o a m o r e s u s t a i n a b l e a n d l i v a b l e c o m m u ni t y . W e e nc o u r a g e s t he c i t y t o d e n y t he 1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 3/11 S i t e D e v e l o p m e n t P e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n , e ff e c t i v e l y a d v o c a t i ng f o r a m o r e c o n t e x t - s e nsi t i v e a p p r o a c h t o d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t p r i o r i t i z e s t he l o ng - t e r m v i s i o n f o r t he W e s t S a n C a r l o s c o r r i d o r .

H e n c e , w e c a l l o n l o c a l r e s i d e n t s a nd a l l w h o c a r e a b o ut o u r ne i g hb o r ho o d t o s i g n t hi s p e t i t i o n t o s t o p t h e d e m o l i t i o n o f t he l o c a l b u s i ne s s f o r a C h i c k - fi l - A . L e t us a c t b e f o r e o ur l o c a l l a n d s c a p e i s i r r e v e r s i b l y c h a n g e d . P l e a s e s i g n .

R e p o r t a p o l i c y v i o l a t i o n
B V N A W e b s i t e
P e t i t i o n S t a r t e r
M e d i a i n q u i r i e s
T h e D e c i s i o n M a k e r s
E v a n L o w
F o r m e r C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e A s s e m b l y - D i s t r i c t 2 6 N o r e s p o n s e ( n o t i fi e d 1 2 6 d a y s a g o ) E m a i l d e c i s i o n m a k e r
S u s a n E l l e n b e r g
S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y B o a r d o f S u p e r v i s o r s - D i s t r i c t 4 N o r e s p o n s e ( n o t i fi e d 1 2 6 d a y s a g o ) 1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 4/11 E m a i l d e c i s i o n m a k e r
M a t t M a h a n
S a n J o s e C i t y M a y o r
N o r e s p o n s e ( n o t i fi e d 1 2 6 d a y s a g o ) E m a i l d e c i s i o n m a k e r
V i e w 2 m o r e
T h e S u p p o r te r s
F e a t u r e d Co m m e n t s
S a b i n e , S a n J o s e
4 m o n t h s a g o
“ T h i s p r o p e r t y a l r e a d y h a s a t h r i vi n g r e s t a u r a n t . E d u a r d o ' s h a s g o o d f o o d a n d i s p o p u l a r w i t h t h e p e o p l e w h o a c t u a l l y l i ve i n t h i s n e i g h b o r h o o d . W h y a r e w e e v e n c o n s i d e r i n g d e s t r o yi n g t h a t f o r t h e s a k e o f a f a s t f o o d p l a c e r u n b y a r a c i s t , h o m o p h o b i c c o m p a n y ? ” 2 0 l i k e s · R e p o r t
L u c y , S a n J o s e
4 m o n t h s a g o
“ T h e s p e c i fi c r e s t a u r a n t “ E d u a r d o ’ s R e s t a u r a n t ” i s v e r y m e a n i n g f u l t o m y p a r e n t s a n d I b e c a u s e t h e y ’ ve b e e n t a k i n g m y s i b l i n g s a n d I t h e r e f o r a v e r y l o n g t i m e a n d I ’ d h a t e t o s e e i t g o n e o r a n y t yp e o f s m a l l b u s i n e s s b e c a u s e w e k n o w h o w m u c h t i m e p e o p l e d e d i c a t e t h e i r t i m e f o r r e s t a u r a n t s ”
1 5 l i k e s · R e p o r t
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 5/11 S o c o r r o , S a n J o s e
4 m o n t h s a g o
“ T h e r e s t a u r a n t , " E d u a r d o ' s T a q u e r i a " i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o m y f a m i l y a n d I b e c a u s e m y c h i l d r e n a n d h u s b a n d h a ve a l w a ys c a m e h e r e a n d i t w o u l d s u c k t o s e e i t g o n e ” 1 2 l i k e s · R e p o r t
V i e w a l l c o m m e n t s
F e a t u r e d Vi d e o s
V i e w a l l s u p p o r t e r v o i c e s
A b o u t t h e s u p p o r t e r s
S i g n a n d s h a r e
w h y y o u c a r e !
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 6/11 6 9 % of s u p p or t e r s com e f r om :
9 5 1 2 6 9 5 1 1 2 9 5 1 2 5
S u p p o r t C h a n g e —
N o t b e h o l d e n t o p o l i t i c s o r p o w e r b r o k e r s , C h a n g e . o r g i s f r e e f o r p e o p l e e v e r y w h e r e t o m a k e c h a n g e . E v e r y d a y t h e r e a r e r e a l v i c t o r i e s f o r i s s u e s y o u c a r e a b o u t , o nl y p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e w e a r e 1 0 0 % f u nd e d b y e v e r y d a y p e o p l e l i k e y o u .
$ 4 $ 6 $ 1 1
$ 2 1 O t h e r
S u p p o r t C h a n g e . o r g
© O p e n M a p T i l e s © O p e n S t r e e t M a p B e c o m e a M e m b e r T o d a y
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 7/11 W i l l y o u s t a n d w i t h u s t o p r o t e c t th e p o w e r o f e v e r y d a y p e o p l e t o m a k e a d i ff e r e n c e ?
P a y w i t h c r e d i t c a r d o r
P e ti ti o n u p d a te s
W S a n C a r l o s C h i c k - fi l - A G o i n g t o D i r e c to r ' s H e a r i n g 2 w e e k s a g o
T h e C o S J h a s p r o v i d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g n o t i c e : H e l l o e v e r y o ne , P l e a s e b e a w a r e t h a t F i l e N o . H 2 4 - 0 4 6 , t h e S i t e D e v e l o p m e n t P e r m i t f o r t h e C h i c k - fi l - A p r o j e c t a t 1 3 0 1 W S a n C a r l o s a n d 2 4 9 - 2 6 3 R a c e S t r e e t h a s b e e n s c h e d u l e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t D i r e c t o r ’ s H e a r i n g o n J u ne 1 1 , 2 0 2 5 a t 9 : 0 0 a . m . f o r a d e c i s i o … 2 , 0 0 0 s u p p o r t e r s 2 m o n t h s a g o
M o r e u p d a t e s
M e d i a M e n ti o n s
D e t e c t e d b y C h a n g e . o r g
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 8/11 S a n J o s e C h i c k - fi l - A c o u l d d i s p l a c e f a m i l y- o w n e d r e s t a u r a n t A M e x i c a n r e s t a u r a n t s e r v i n g S a n J o s e r e s i d e n t s f o r m o r e t h a n 2 0 y e a r s m a y b e p u s h e d o u t o f i t s b u i l d i n g t o m a k e w a y f o r a n e w f a s t - f o o d l o c a t i o n .

S a n J o s é S p o t l i g h t J u n 2
•
D e t e c t e d b y C h a n g e . o r g
S h o o r : S a n J o s e ' s g e n
A s k a l m o s t a n y S i l i c o n
w h a t w i d e s p r e a d i s s u e
b u i l d m o r e h o u s i n g . S
S a n J o s é S p o t l i g h t M a r
•
D e t e c t e d b y C h a n g e . o r g
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d6… 9/11 S h a r e th i s p e ti ti o n
S h a r e t h i s p e t i t i o n i n p e r s o n o r u s e t he Q R c o d e f o r y o ur o w n m a t e r i a l .

D o w n l oa d Q R C ode
S h a r e o n F a c e b o o k
S e n d v i a W h a t s A p p
S a n J o s e c o m m u n i t y c o n c e r n e d o v e r s m a l l b u s i n e s s , h o u s i n g i m p a c t s w i t h n e w C h i c k - fi l - A p r o p o s a l
T h e r e ' s a b a t t l e b r e w i n g i n t h e S o u t h B a y o v e r a p l a n f o r a C h i c k - fi l - A . T h e c h i c k e n c h a i n i s p r o p o s i n g a n e w l o c a t i o n t h a t w o u l d t a k e t h e p l a c e o f s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s .

A B C 7 S a n F r a n c i s c o F e b 2
•
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d… 10/11 P o s t o n X
C o p y l i n k
S e n d v i a e m a i l
P e t i t i o n c r e a t e d o n J a n u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 2 5 C h a n g e . o r g r e d e v e l o p m e n t
R e s p e c t U r b a n V i l l a g e P l a n s a n d E n s u r e R e s p o n s i b l e R e d e v e l o p m e n t i n S a n J o s e C o m p a n y
A b o u t
Im p act
C areers
Team
C o m m u n i t y
B lo g
P ress
C o m m u n ity
G u id elin es
S u p p o r t
H elp
P rivacy
Term s
C o o kie P o licy
M an age
C o o kies
C o n n e c t
X
Faceb o o k
In stagram
G u i d e s
P etitio n
G u id es
C reate Yo u r
P etitio n
C o llect
S ign atu res
R each o u t to
M ed ia
E n gage Yo u r
D ecisio n
M aker
© 2 0 2 5 , C h a n g e .o r g , P B C
T h is site is p rotected by reC A P TC H A an d th e G o o gle P r i v a c y P o l i c y an d T e r m s o f S e r v i c e ap p ly .

E n glish (U n ited S tates )
1 5 2 p e opl e s i g n e d t o d a y
6/4/25, 12:56 PM Petition · Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible Redevelopment in San Jose - San Jose, United States · Change.org https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose?recruiter=1364080854&recruited_by_id=d… 11/11 Respect Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible
Redevelopment in San Jose
Leo 23 hours ago
Bruh… Chick Fil A can suck a dick. Tell them it’s my pleasure. Taqueria Eduardo forever!!
Mariella 23 hours ago
Taqueria Eduardo has been a staple for me when I lived in San Jose during my college years. Their carnitas fries are my favorite! Please keep these unique mom and pop spots that represent San Jose’s community!!
David 1 day ago
Crazy that somehow city officials interpret the General Plan's vision of housing and urban villages to mean that they should displace two small businesses in order to bring in a national fast food chain. What? This is exactly what the community, as expressed through formal policy, does not want.

Justin 2 days ago
Family owned local businesses should be our priority to protect Richard 2 days ago
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 1/16 Evangelical Hate Food? Not in my City.

Rodolfo 2 days ago
San Jose shouldn't be kicking out their own small business owners. In order to make wave at a racist corporation company to take over our local businesses.

Should be a shame. Just like de anza college tying to displace people. Not having that in the south bay.

Patrick 2 days ago
Leave Eduarto's to be, there is no valid reason other than killing competition to level that business. The original BK lot should become housing; they can put a fast-food place on the ground floor if they wish.

Fernando 2 days ago
This is one of the greatest restaurants in the area. I love Eduardos! David 2 days ago
Access the June 2nd San Jose Spotlight article and comments.

Chris 1 week ago
Small businesses are vital to our community, and Eduardo's is a beloved establishment. Destroying Eduardo's in favor of a parking lot and a chain fast food restaurant would be such a shame, and not what I want from my city representatives.
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 2/16 Gillian 1 month ago
This place is my go to taco place, the food is so delicious and far more better than those fast food restaurants! It’s so convenient and definitely a gem in this area.

Please keep it!
Leilani 2 months ago
The restaurant Eduardo’s is one of my favorites I don’t want it to leave their food is really delicious
Jesus 2 months ago
Keep local businesses in the area
Juan 2 months ago
Eduardo’s Taqueria is real whole sum and great to eat food every time I purchase food there I was treated with kindness and respect and plus it’s a staple to the community so I work on the road alot Eduardo’s is my number one place to grab a bite we definitely need them around for future years to come.

Trevor 2 months ago
This spot forreal is one of the best taquerias in San Jose PERIOD. Replacing this with some average fast food slop would be a disservice. Don’t believe me you should go down there yourself and find out.
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 3/16 Divya 2 months ago
Small business like Edwardos make a community feel like a community. Large chains have enough locations as it is.

Erasmo 2 months ago
We love Eduardos taqueria. Please leave it
C 3 months ago
SJ should prioritize locally owned and managed small business over big fast food chain stores. Keep taxable revenues in our state, in our county & in our city. CFA ownership as expressed both social and political views is abhorent to this community. Please say "go away" to Chick Fil A!
KELLEY 3 months ago
Please, do not put this in our neighborhood. Not only will congestion increase considerably, but it does not respect the mom & pop vibe of our neighborhood.

San Jose does NOT need another huge, impersonal fast food restaurant clogging up its streets. Why in the world would we support them and not our own neighbors who have been here for years? This is not what San Jose should prioritize.

Rufina 3 months ago
We being coming to Eduardo’s TaQueria for long time .. we love their authentic Mexican Menudo one of favorite ..
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 4/16 Alma 3 months ago
Eduardo’s is a delicious and authentic mexican restaurant that has my support and would hate to see it removed for a commercial fast food restaurant. Great mexican food is hard to find and this is a gem!
Susan 3 months ago
Fast Food Chains have a reputation for aiding in chronic health conditions. I live close by and do not appreciate a Chick-fil-a at the expense of restaurant Eduardo. I have walked to Eduardo’s and also driven there, I will not walk to Chick-fil-a. We already have McDonalds in this location for people that want drive-thru food.

Jason 3 months ago
This location has a really good taqueria that’s very popular in the neighborhood, plus there’s plenty of room for chick fil a without demolishing this building - there used to be a Burger King on the site and they both coexisted just fine. Ridiculous to suggest to add a chick fil a we have to give up a locally owned spot. Small local businesses are what give neighborhoods their character, not lame chain restaurants.

Veronica 3 months ago
We’re losing small businesses that are family owned or been in the area for years having a small business is what accomplish people dreams Jorge 3 months ago
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 5/16 I am sorry, I made a typo. What I meant was, supporting our community means supporting our local vendors!
Jorge 3 months ago
Support our community means shooting our local vendors! Samantha 3 months ago
We don’t want a restaurant that is strongly anti people’s freedom to live how they want! Eduardo’s is an amazing restaurant that has been apart of the community for decades.

Pamela 3 months ago
We are either serious about improving housing through mixed use near public transportation or we aren't. This area is served by regular bus routes and is on close proximity to the train station for trains, light rail and BART. This is no place for a single story fast food drive through restaurant, or we aren't serious about housing and transportation viability.

Annie 3 months ago
I would prefer small businesses, such as the well-established, beloved Eduardo’s here. A corporate fast food chain like CFA is not needed in this location.

Annie 3 months ago
I would prefer a well established community gem like Eduardo’s over a corporate restaurant such as CFA. Unyil there are better options, please keep these small 6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 6/16 businesses here.

Jamie 3 months ago
Eduardos is far more delicious than any mass produced chicken sandwich chik fil a serves
Stephen 4 months ago
No compelling need for this business to be located here after being denied successfully in Campbell, especially when there's a concensus not to establish it here.

John 4 months ago
Eduardo’s Taqueria is better than 10 chic-fil-as combined! Keep San Jose local! Michelle 4 months ago
I love this place, I’ve grown up eating here. & I wouldn’t want it to close, Angel 4 months ago
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 7/16 Arjun 4 months ago
Taqueria Eduardo is a staple of that block. We go there all the time. It would be a travesty if they replaced it with a generic Chick-fil-A. Please keep our neighborhood the way it is 🙏🏾
Rosa 4 months ago
I really can’t stand the traffic this fast food chain creates, where ever it is there’s a disgustingly long line causing traffic.

Daniel 4 months ago
Leave this business alone
blanca 4 months ago
I have been coming to eat at this place since I was a young girl. I love their food Joshua 4 months ago
One Chick fil a is enough for San Jose and we have atleast 2 already. 0:00
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 8/16 Michael 4 months ago
Yes to Eduardo’s! No to homophobic chicken!
Maria Elma 4 months ago
The community has put in time in the vision of an urban village plan, developers and planners should respect and adhere to it. There are no state laws that require this type of restaurant development. But there are laws for housing development.

Hannah 4 months ago
I bike through this area a lot. CFA and more cars for its drive thru would ruin the commutability of the neighborhood
Socorro 4 months ago
quiero comida 😣😣😣
Marlenne 4 months ago
eduardos taqueria is a clean restaurant with delicious food and a family restaurant David 4 months ago
One fast food chain at the expense of two successful small businesses? No way! Eduardo’s is a jewel and local hotspot in San Jose. This is potential project will only ruin the local offerings.
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 9/16 Mira 4 months ago
Homophobic business have no place in San Jose, and they shouldn't have a place anywhere.

Miguel 4 months ago
No thank you to yet another Chic fil A
Mohammad 4 months ago
This is a thriving corner full of small locally owned businesses that serves the community's needs. How does yet another unhealthy chain benefit us? These local businesses take so little from the neighborhood and provide so much. Why do local businesses thrive on so few parking spots, and generate so little traffic, yet Chic Fil-A wants to demolish half the block for parking and generate even more traffic? Does it serve our needs any better? There's already a Popeye's a few blocks away, and a ...

Read more
Gilberto 4 months ago
We have to be more involved in our community figure out which district you're in and who is the councilman in charge. This is taking place in district 6 and his name is Michael Mulcahy. Hold him accountable he has a Twitter! Andrew 4 months ago
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 10/16 I've lived near CFA locations before, and they almost always cause terrible traffic congestion. Even with double drive-thru lanes, there are lines that block the street, causing backups and blocking roads. These are awful for neighborhoods trying to encourage residential or mixed use.

Maricela 4 months ago
Enough!! We don't need more bigoted corporations coming into our neighborhoods tearing down our local businesses!
Anathea 4 months ago
There are so many better uses for this prime location than a low density, unneeded fast food restaurant. This is an important corner in an urban village and this use is not in alignment with our values and needs for Midtown.

Arika L 4 months ago
Chic fil a has blatantly shown distain for the LGBT community and they should not be supported.

Jose 4 months ago
Local businesses should ALWAYS come first. Chain restaurants have plenty of locations throughout San Jose.

William 4 months ago
Our favorite restaurant in San Jose. We make special trips just to go there. Also, surprised the county is willing to deal with a corrupt and immoral corporation like 6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 11/16 Chik a Fila. I assume you know they are not allowed in San Francisco county and are kicked out of the entire UK.

Justin 4 months ago
We drive across town to come eat at Taqueria Eduardo once a week . It is absolutely delicious and the staff is so kind and friendly. It would be devastating to lose such a gem of a restaurant !!
Tania 4 months ago
Please do not close this restaurant.

Erwin 4 months ago
Foods really Great? Please don’t Close this Restaurant. arianna 4 months ago
i enjoy eating here
Senaida 4 months ago
Me encanta este lugar por qué la comida está muy rica!
Mariana 4 months ago
Me gusta este lugar porque está muy rico el menudo!!
Back to petition
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 12/16 Natalie 4 months ago
I love taqueria Eduardo! I’ve came here since i was born and now im 19 years old and I LOVE THE MENUDO!
Peter 4 months ago
Closing Eduardo’s for a chick-fil-a would be like trading Luka Doncic for AD Isbel 4 months ago
It is a Eduardo restaurant has good food where all of us who work nearby benefit.

The fast food is greasy because everything is fried in bad oils.

Dhimant 4 months ago
Save Eduardos Taqueria. Some things shouldnt change and this is one of them.

CHICK FIL A SUCKS ANYWAYS. Eduardos is old School SJ LANDMARK!!!! Roger 4 months ago
Urban Development??? LOL look how good DEI worked
Lucy 4 months ago
The specific restaurant “Eduardo’s Restaurant” is very meaningful to my parents and I because they’ve been taking my siblings and I there for a very long time and 6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 13/16 I’d hate to see it gone or any type of small business because we know how much time people dedicate their time for restaurants
Socorro 4 months ago
The restaurant, "Eduardo's Taqueria" is very important to my family and I because my children and husband have always came here and it would suck to see it gone Reymundo 4 months ago
This restaurant, “Eduardo’s Taqueria” has been significant for my family and I, my children grew up on this restaurant and hope to not take it away.

Matt 4 months ago
This is not an appropriate location for a restaurant like chik fil a. It’s way too busy and with all the recent development in the area, a walk up spot like eduardos is much more appropriate.

Erick 4 months ago
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 14/16 Jeanne 4 months ago
I oppose Chic-fil-a for their bigotry and will NEVER step foot into this "restaurant" for that reason alone. Communities would be better served focusing on small businesses, not these large bigoted corporations serving up high in calories, carbohydrates, sodium and fat thanks to the fried chicken, milkshakes and fries.

Sabine 4 months ago
This property already has a thriving restaurant. Eduardo's has good food and is popular with the people who actually live in this neighborhood. Why are we even considering destroying that for the sake of a fast food place run by a racist, homophobic company?
Russell 4 months ago
Please keep Chick-fil-A alive for all eternity without getting destroyed 🙏 A 4 months ago
Chick-fil-a is just bigotry on a bun. But even if you ignore that, we need HOUSING we need mixed-use, we need TOD. We *don't* need a bunch of space killed for a single fast food restaurant. Build that 17 story mixed-use and put the restaurant in the bottom of it if you must. People can walk to ride VTA to it. 0:00
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 15/16 Arnab 4 months ago
This fast food chain not only explicitly opposes our values as a community but will create noise pollution, air pollution, and foul odors around the block. It is the opposite of what anyone needs and further drain's San Jose of any claim to being anything more than faceless urban sprawl up for grabs to the lowest bidder.

Company
About
Impact
Careers
Team
Community
Blog
Press
Community
Guidelines
Support
Help
Privacy
Terms
Cookie Policy
Manage
Cookies
Connect
X
Facebook
Instagram
Guides
Petition
Guides
Create Your
Petition
Collect
Signatures
Reach out to
Media
Engage Your
Decision
Maker
© 2025, Change.org, PBC
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

English (United States)
6/4/25, 12:57 PM Change.org · The world’s platform for change https://www.change.org/p/respect-urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-redevelopment-in-san-jose/feed 16/16 Outlook
RE: Support of chick fil a
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-03-21 13:51
To 'Kristy cl'
Hi Kristy,
Thanks for your e-mail and I note your support of the project.

I will also note that if you are not aware, we will be having a Zoom community meeting on this project next Thursday at 6:30. More details are on the City's website at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/4953.

Thanks,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
-----Original Message-----
From: Kristy cl
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 10:07
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Support of chick fil a
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Attn Mr Lee-
6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

I live in the Shasta Hanchett neighborhood at . I support the plans for a chick Fil A (or any restaurant) on the proposed site of Race st/ San Carlos.

I think it would be a positive contribution to the local economy and decrease the overall number of vehicles parked in the street since it will not be high density housing. Additionally, this would remove the current blight that has been at that site for many years. There is already a large multi level apartment complex that will be on that street and I can only imagine the increased number of cars that will be looking for street parking in the area.

While I don’t agree with Chick Fil A company ethics, I believe the question should be- shall we have a single story walk in dining place at this spot. And I support a dine in restaurant on this site.

I wonder if many residents in opposition to this plan would feel the same had it been a different proposed restaurant (ie Panera).

Thank you for taking my perspective into account.

Kristy Culp leonard
Sent from my iPhone
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-24 11:30
To 'Bumblebee M' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom this Thursday, March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235. Please note that due to the amount of people expected to attend this meeting, we expect that public comment will be limited to one minute.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Bumblebee M
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 20:15
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

Additionally, construction of the larger parking lot detailed in the proposal would require demolishing two existing local businesses. This new restaurant should not need a parking lot larger than the one that supported the previous fast-food establishment that occupied the corner of this site. 6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

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

6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-03-24 11:58
To 'Susan Popko' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Susan,
Thanks for your e-mail and your comments.

Staff does note that we must review projects when, where, and how they are submitted by applicants. For this project, the applicants have proposed demolition of the building housing Eduardo's and the construction a relatively small one-story building with a parking lot, and therefore, staff must review the project as per the application, and see if the necessary findings can be made to recommend approval to a decision maker. If the previous mixed-use project were proposed, then staff would review that; if Chick- fil-A decided to locate at a different site, then staff would review that. However, staff, and the City in general, do not control when and where private development applications are made (or withdrawn), and state law obligates us to process the application and ultimately bring the application to hearing if so desired by an applicant.

Regarding a walkable neighborhood, the project will be conditioned to include wider sidewalks on both Race Street and San Carlos, meaning that should it be built, there will be better pedestrian access from the new residential development on Race Street to not only this site, but the commercial sites across San Carlos. Additionally, there will be bulbouts at the intersection, extending the sidewalk into the current street to further pedestrian safety and slow traffic. While two driveway entrances are ultimately needed for service vehicles, the driveway closer to San Carlos would be limited to right-in/right-out traffic to prevent traffic conflicts. If a Local Transportation Analysis finds additional nexuses, further traffic improvements may be required, but I do not know of (and do not expect) anything further at this time.

Ultimately, regardless of staff recommendation, this project will be noticed and heard for a decision at a future public hearing once all materials are ready. The decision on the project will be made initially by the Director or his representative at a Director's Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.

Thank you,
Jason
6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Popko
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2025 16:34
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Subject: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Davis, and Councilmember-elect Mulcahy,
I am unable to attend the Community Meeting on March 27 and am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Chick-Fil-A.. Please do not approve the Chick-fil-A restaurant to be placed at 1301 W. Sean Carlos at the corner of Race Street. I live in the neighborhood by Eduardo’s Taqueria and am writing to voice my opposition to a Chick-Fil-A moving in to displace existing long-standing community businesses. Eduardo’s is a local treasure with fantastic tacos and one of the best salsa bars around! Eduardo’s has been there for 25 years. In addition, Race Street is a small, street and a giant parking lot for business there will disrupt traffic and the small, local feel of the community. We want a small, pedestrian friendly neighborhood, not a project that will create a giant parking lot with more traffic — there are already a lot of accidents on Race and this will just increase them. Our neighborhood needs small, densely located housing and businesses, not one large, single-story business with a giant parking lot displacing small, local, independently-owned business.

If Chick-Fil-A wants to be in the area, why don't they move into the spot recently vacated by Starbucks on the Alameda and Race? Or any of the other vacant spaces along The Alameda? 6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

Please do not let this happen.

Thank you,
Susan Popko
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 12:59 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3

Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-03-25 17:20
To 'Vikki Essert' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>
Hi Vikki,
Thanks for your e-mail. Your opposition to the project is noted.

Regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety, sidewalks on both Race and San Carlos will be widened to accommodate for pedestrians in conjunction with the Urban Village plan. Additionally, there will be bulbouts constructed on the northern side of San Carlos, which would slow traffic and lessen the crossing distance for pedestrians. The project would also provide in-lieu contributions for Class IV protected bike lanes along both West San Carlos and Race Streets, which would be built by the City according to the City's Better Bike Plan at a later date. Staff also notes that there is no drive-through at this Chick-fil-A, and everyone driving to the site would have to park; additionally the plan provides 60 vehicle parking spaces. While the City has eliminated minimum parking requirements, the prior code resulted in a parking minimum of 37 spaces for this proposal.

Staff also notes that as per State law, staff is required to process, review, and formulate recommendations for projects as they are submitted to the City. Ultimately, a decision on the project will be made by a decisionmaker, whether it be the Director/Hearing Officer at Director’s Hearing, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.

The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom this Thursday, March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235. Please note that due to the amount of people expected to attend this meeting, we expect that public comment will be limited to one minute.
6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

Thanks,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887
City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
-----Original Message-----
From: Vikki Essert
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:02 PM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Subject: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-fil-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. I commute through this intersection by bicycle regularly. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan describes the site of the proposed development as an area with “higher-density mixed-use and residential development drawing energy from nearby Downtown San José and the Diridon Station. Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active groundfloor retail.” That intersection is near VTA with pedestrians using the roadway to access the bus stops and the lines of traffic at every Chick Fil A in the Bay area create a dangerous situation for pedestrians and cyclists. 6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

Please tell Chick-fil-A to locate elsewhere with less impact on small business, residents, pedestrians and cyclists.

Vikki Essert
Campbell resident
Work in San Jose
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-03-26 18:22
To 'Cam Coulter' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Dear Cameron,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom tomorrow, March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235. Please note that due to the amount of people expected to attend this meeting, we expect that public comment will be limited to one minute.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Cam Coulter
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 5:31 PM
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

Additionally, construction of the larger parking lot detailed in the proposal would require demolishing two existing local businesses. This new restaurant should not need a parking lot larger than the one that supported the previous fast-food establishment that occupied the corner of this site. 6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

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

Thank you,
Cam Coulter
San Jose Resident

6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 Outlook
RE: Public comment for Project H24-046
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-03-26 17:25
To 'Violet Moon'
Hi Violet,

Thank you very much for your comments. Your opposition to the project is noted and we do appreciate your concerns.

Staﬀ has worked with the applicant to promote walkability, including the widening of sidewalks along both the San Carlos and Race Street frontages, and intersection improvements, including bulbouts, to promote pedestrian safety by shortening the pedestrian walking distance on the north side of the intersection, as well as making the turning radius larger to slow down vehicle traﬃc. The project would also provide in-lieu contributions for Class IV protected bike lanes along both West San Carlos and Race Streets, which would be built by the City according to the City's Better Bike Plan at a later date.

Regarding the removal of the trees, the trees currently adjacent to the sidewalks are being removed as a result of the City’s desire to widen the sidewalks. Additionally, some of the trees on the western boundary (next to the former drive-thru lane) are being removed because of the City’s shift from minimum setbacks to maximum setbacks at the site; moving the building closer to the property line than the former Burger King necessitates that certain trees be removed. The applicant included an arborist report for the remaining trees, citing the health and suitability of these trees. In any event, the project does include the planting of 22 on-site trees and the Department of Transportation is likely to require an additional seven street trees along the sidewalks.

Regarding the identity of the applicant, ultimately, staﬀ is required to review all projects agnostic of the applicant, and can only take into account the required permit ﬁndings (land use, design, and environmental matters) to form a recommendation of the project. This application is a Site Development Permit, which if approved, would ultimately permit the construction of the building on the site. Obviously, Chick-ﬁl-A is the applicant and it’s clearly designed to operate as a Chick-ﬁl-A, but in theory, once the structure is built, any permitted uses in the UV zoning district (restaurant, retail, etc.) would be able to move into the building without a further Planning permit.

The City will hold a community meeting on Zoom tomorrow, March 27th at 6:30 p.m. More information about this meeting is available at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/5235. Please note that due to the amount of people expected to attend this meeting, we expect that public comment will be limited to one minute.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Violet Moon
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 4:26 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment for Project H24-046

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I would like to voice my opposition to Project H24-046, the RACE & SAN CARLOS CHICK-FIL-A PROJECT.

This area is perfectly suited to fit an urban design that encourages walkability, as well as biking and transit use. The introduction of a Chick-Fil-A to the area would increase congestion, which would in turn increase pollution and the potential for pedestrian accidents. This is made worse by the removal of 20 trees which are vital to the urban landscape, providing both shade and fresh air to residents and invites visitors to promote the local businesses already in the area. A use of the land that promotes small businesses and pedestrian access while preserving the existing greenery would be much better for the overall health and livability of the area. I believe the area could be better used by local small businesses, rather than sending more money out of the city and the state.

And finally I would be remiss if I was to neglect the issue that Chick-Fil-A as a company does not promote the values that make San Jose and Silicon Valley what it is today. In its promotion and support of anti-LGBTQ causes is incompatible with the lifestyles of many San Jose residents, and I must push back against allowing them to develop the area as it is a tacit admission that your LGBTQ residents are unwelcome, in addition to the issues stated above.

In conclusion, I believe that San Jose is a beautiful city that doesn't need another fast food restaurant when the land could be used in a much healthier, economically promising, and inclusive fashion.

Thank you for your consideration
Violet Moon
Resident of San Jose

6/4/25, 1:00 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-03-28 09:41
To 'Russell Brautigam' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Russell,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your continued opposition to the project is noted. Please see below for staﬀ’s updated response to this letter.

6/4/25, 1:01 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Russell Brautigam
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 18:47
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

Please stand by the principles and plans we have created to guide our city and region into a better, more 6/4/25, 1:01 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. sustainable future. Please tell Chick-ﬁl-A to majorly re-work its San Carlos St proposal or locate elsewhere.

6/4/25, 1:01 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Re: Chick Fil A
From Jonathan Gordon
Date Fri 2025-03-28 20:02
To Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>

Understood. It sounds like the Urban Village zoning lacks sufficient teeth for rejecting projects that do not meet the spirit of the vision.

I sure hope that a decision maker is able to reject this, it is a truly awful use of land.

Thank you for the discussion and I hope you find yourself in a position to have more direct influence in the near future.
— Jonathan
On Mar 28, 2025, at 5:17 PM, Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

Obviously, every project is diﬀerent and would need to be evaluated in its own context, but quite frankly, in our discussions, the minimum is that they need to meet aspects of each of the UV vision elements and meet applicable objective standards within the plan, including applicable portions of the urban design concept. There are multiple ways for a project to meet these goals, but in this case, that’s basically to say that
without requirements to widen sidewalks and the inclusion of other pedestrian improvements, the patio, and the mural, staﬀ would likely not be able to recommend approval. I’ll just note that in the context of a development permit, a recommendation for approval just means that staﬀ believes the decisionmaker is able to make the ﬁndings required in the Municode to approve a permit. The bar is quite high for us to recommend denial, which would mean that staﬀ believes the ﬁndings to approve the permit could not be made.

Aside from that, I’ll repeat that this is a commercial project in a commercial designation and commercial zone, and that’s the base of any recommendation. Otherwise, we continue to concede that this project doesn’t meet the aspirational goals and certain non-objective policies in the UV plan, and we’ve made it clear to the applicant that some of these unmet goals (most notably parking and FAR) could be used by a decisionmaker to ﬁnd non-conformance with the UV plan and deny the project at hearing.
6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/4

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Jonathan Gordon
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 16:37
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc: The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Chick Fil A

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Thank you for the response, I'm glad to hear there will not be a drive thru.

I still strongly disagree that a single story, single use, low density building with a large parking lot achieves the vision of "a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use corridor, with a well-connected neighborhood and vibrant business district." My main question for you is, what would have to be worse about this for it to not meet the acceptability requirements of the Urban Village? If we think about it from that perspective, it doesn't seem that this project could be much worse of a ﬁt.

The Smart & Final, as well as the Safeway, that you're talking about are basically parking oceans with prison-like buildings on islands in the middle. A patio is great until you realize it's unusable due to how much car noise and pollution all of this car dependent design generates. And the mural? Lipstick on a pig.

None of this is pedestrian friendly, urban, mixed use design.

-- Jonathan

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 3:33 PM Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for your e-mail.

To be clear, this proposal does not include a drive-thru. The end result should this be approved would be a single-storey building on the San Carlos frontage with a quite large parking lot, but there is no drive-thru proposed, and a drive-thru would no longer be allowed at this site.

6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/4

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] The baseline for this project is that this is a commercial project in a commercial designation and commercial zone, in a location that does not require residential development, and does not have an objective minimum density/FAR. At this point, staﬀ generally believes that the project conforms with the Urban Village plan despite the lower density nature of the project because the UV plan envisions a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use corridor, with a well-connected neighborhood and vibrant business district. Aspects of the project, including pedestrian improvements (wider sidewalks and intersection improvements) will help connect the project site and areas around the project site (i.e. the new apartment building to the Safeway/Smart & Final) and enhance pedestrian safety, includes a patio to add to street-level vibrancy on the San Carlos and Race corner, and a mural over about half the building facing San Carlos to add pedestrian interest. Staﬀ continues to acknowledge that the project does not meet the aspirational goals of the UV (and has continued to push the applicant on certain aspects of this, including the amount of parking provided), but believes that on balance, the proposal meets GP and UV goals. Obviously, we will need to discuss further based on what we heard in the meeting yesterday, but I can’t promise that staﬀ’s position will change as a result of those discussions.

In any event, a decision-maker, whether the Director/his representative, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, will also have to weigh the UV plan and policies and determine if the required ﬁndings can be made and approve or deny the project.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Jonathan Gordon
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 15:06
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>
Subject: Chick Fil A

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Hi Jason -

Can you please explain to me how a drive thru chick-ﬁl-a meets the requirements of urban village zoning? That is the epitome of car dependent design which has no business being anywhere near our downtown or an urban village.

6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/4

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

If you believe that a car dependent drive thru restaurant is above the line of acceptability for an urban village, I would love to understand your take on what is actually below the line? I truly don't understand what could be more inappropriate other than demolishing a structure to be replaced exclusively with car parking.

While I agree with your comments that planning decisions should not take in account the religious or political leanings of the business, especially those from the past, I completely disagree with your overall decision here.

We should 100% not allow this car dependent land use anywhere near our urban village designated areas. I honestly have no idea what urban village even means if this is what qualiﬁes. It is a terrible direction and a terrible precedent to set.

--
------------------------
Jonathan Gordon

6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 4/4 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Re: Additional comment to H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27 From Rachel Kumar
Date Fri 2025-03-28 11:05
To Lee, Jason <[email protected]>

Thanks Jason. I understand that you've got to consider some challenging arguments both for and against this proposal, and I do appreciate your professional and thorough communication as you attempt to fairly consider all of those competing interests.

Thanks again,
-Rachel
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 9:35 AM Lee, Jason <
[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Rachel,

Thank you, and thank you for your comments. All comments e-mailed (including this comment) will be included in the packets we send to decision-makers.

Internally, we’ll continue to talk and regroup on a recommendation here, and we’ll talk about if we heard anything that would change our minds on this, or if we need to ask the applicant to correct anything to come into conformance. From staﬀ’s point of view, the baseline on this project has been that it’s a commercial project in a commercial designation and a commercial zone which does not violate any objective standards, but obviously there are other considerations beyond just that, and do know that we are not dismissing your concerns out of hand. We have reconsidered this and had multiple meetings (including after some comment letters were received) about this project to talk about the recommendation and to consider diﬀerent policies which have been brought up to us.

I have tried to be clear to everyone, and I hope I was last night as well, that regardless of staﬀ’s ultimate recommendation, a decision-maker can use the points made by the public (or frankly, even points made by staﬀ) to come up with a diﬀerent balance than staﬀ and deny the project if they so wish, especially with the ﬁnding that was mentioned yesterday (advancing the goals of the General Plan, speciﬁc plans, etc.). I can’t promise that we’ll come up with a diﬀerent result (and to be clear, I can’t promise to the applicant that we won’t come up with a diﬀerent result either), but we’ll certainly have further discussions.

Regarding the speciﬁc comment, I do understand the concern here, and I’ll mention it and see if we can consider it in full or in part within the bounds of staﬀ review and the required permit ﬁndings, but again, it will be in the record for decisionmakers as well.

Thanks again,
Jason
6/4/25, 1:01 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/3

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

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

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Rachel Kumar
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 20:07
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Additional comment to H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hi Jason, thank you for hosting the community meeting this evening on the San Carlos & Race street development proposal.

I understand that your ﬁnal remarks were intended to inform us of the rationale that your team is using to evaluate and make a recommendation, but it also (maybe unintentionally) made it sound like our input as members of the public was not going to aﬀect your recommendation since you'd already made your decision that "on balance" the plan met the established goals.

I understand that you're bound by certain processes: that you must evaluate an application when presented, and that you cannot consider the speciﬁc applicant or tenant's identity in determining your recommendation.

However, it would seem irresponsible, to me, to ignore the most likely eﬀects of this plan based on the community response.

As we've seen at other locations Chick-Fil-A has opened in San Jose, there is often high demand that reaches beyond immediate neighborhoods. Greenlighting this new location in a neighborhood that does not welcome the brand, means that they will be primarily serving non-neighbors, and again, in a business layout that will not necessarily funnel those visitors as additional foot traﬃc to the other businesses in the Urban Village.

Practically speaking, this suggests that it will draw high incoming but short-term visits which may be good for
Chick-Fil-A but a negative for the neighborhood residents, the existing businesses that will be uprooted, and any new businesses whose pedestrian customer base will have to compete with the constant car traﬃc to this location.

Please share my concerns with the staﬀ at your next review, and again, thank you for providing the forum for public input.
-Rachel

6/4/25, 1:01 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

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

6/4/25, 1:01 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-03-28 13:18
To 'Greg Ripa'
Cc District 6 <[email protected]>
Hi Greg,

Thank you for this, and also for your comments last night. I forwarded this over to Christine and Hudson, and of course, staﬀ will consider your comments again in the course of formulating a recommendation.

Thanks again,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Greg Ripa
March 27, 2025 21:22
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc: District 6 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27

Jason,
Here is my follow up letter to tonight's meeting. You can share it with the applicants as well. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 8:45 AM Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Greg,
6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/9

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

I checked with Public Works, and the LTA does not assume the presence of the Burger King. Even though the physical building was demolished fairly recently, it was vacated about eight years ago now, and there hasn’t been an active use on that part of the site since then.

Thanks and understood, obviously comments are saved for the record and will be presented to the decision- making body/bodies at hearing (in addition to any testimony at the hearing).

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Greg Ripa
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:54 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc: District 6 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27

Jason,
I actually never intended to hear a response, so thank you for responding at all! I do disagree with some of the conclusions regarding the various policies but these are indeed areas where I think people can disagree.

I do have one issue with your statement, however. You wrote "’also note that we have to review the project site as it is and the project as it exists on ﬁle. For example, we are not able to do our analysis with the assumption that the Burger King building is still there, as it is not." However, coming from a transportation analysis background, and knowing that a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) is under review, I'd be willing to bet that it accounts for the traﬃc from the previous Burger King in its analysis. Therefore, there would be some inconsistency there where planning doesn't analyze the eﬀects of demolished buildings but the traﬃc analysis does account for those eﬀects. I'd have to see the results of the LTA to conﬁrm this.

I agree that staﬀ will make a recommendation one way or another and that the applicants have the right to proceed to a hearing on this project, regardless of staﬀ recommendation. None-the-less, I would still be opposed to the project at such a hearing at the Planning Commission or City Council, who ultimately may or may not override the staﬀ decision.

Thanks again for your response, even if I disagree with some of the conclusions!

Greg
6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/9

On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 6:19 PM Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your e-mail, and the thoughtful and thorough letter on this project. As I absolutely am not going to have the time to respond to your letter prior to Thursday’s community meeting, I am instead going to attach a portion of staﬀ’s response to a similar letter from the D6 Neighborhood Leadership Group, who brought up similar concerns about the project. This is not going to respond to your arguments exactly, but many of the points raised do mirror the points raised by the D6NLG in their letter (sometimes using the UV policy instead of a similar GP policy and vice versa).

I think the most succinct response I can give regarding this project is that staﬀ generally feels that this is a commercial project in a commercial-designated and commercial-zoned area, which does not require a residential component, and does not prescribe (although it does encourage) a minimum FAR. Staﬀ has analyzed the project thoroughly, and we generally believe that the project meets many General Plan and Urban Village policies, and is designed in a manner to meet broader Urban Village visions of increased walkability and connectivity in the area, vibrancy, public spaces (including sidewalks), and the incorporation of public art, it is on balance in conformance with the GP and UV. We understand that the project does not meet some of the aspirational goals of the plan, but ultimately do not believe that the GP or the UV plan itself precludes such commercial development. Ultimately, should the Director or his representative, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, disagree with staﬀ’s ﬁndings, they would be able to reverse a recommendation for approval and deny the project instead.

I’d also note that we have to review the project site as it is and the project as it exists on ﬁle. For example, we are not able to do our analysis with the assumption that the Burger King building is still there, as it is not; additionally, State law requires that we must take this project forward and evaluate this project on its own merits – not on the merits of the highest and best use of the land, or the merits of a potential alternative project. The applicants have made it clear that they are not intending to build an intense mixed-use project on this site and per State law, they have the right to proceed to a hearing on this project, regardless of staﬀ recommendation. While staﬀ is likely to recommend approval because we believe that the project is on balance in conformance with the GP and UV plan and policies, staﬀ is not the ﬁnal decisionmaker on the project and any such recommendation can be overruled.

I would like to also note that should the project be approved, it will include a condition for a mural for what the plans show as a blank wall along San Carlos in order to add more visual appeal to the project. I’ll also note that all projects are entitled to seek exceptions to the Citywide Design Standards pursuant to Section

1.1.2, and generally, these requests are granted if the ﬁndings can be made; additionally, the design portions of the Urban Village Plan generally prevail over the Citywide Design Guidelines due to the hierarchy of documents, so any component prescribed or discussed in an Urban Village plan overrides the Citywide Design Guidelines.

Thanks,
Jason

---

In general, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan intends to create a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use corridor, and is envisioned as an accessible, well-connected neighborhood and vibrant business district.

While higher-density uses are allowed, lower-density uses are not precluded in the Urban Village. Even in higher-density neighborhoods in San José, and around the region, state, and world, there are buildings of various densities and sizes which make up the urban fabric. Lower-density uses can still ﬁt within the urban fabric, and contribute to the streetscape, walkability, and street-level vibrancy of districts; within the City, staﬀ points to the eastern portion of The Alameda where a mix of densities, including lower-density projects, do not prevent a vibrant streetscape.
6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/9

Staﬀ has worked with Chick-ﬁl-A to move away from a typical franchise restaurant at this location and add positive features to the building, including a patio at the corner to add street-level vibrancy, and have negotiated for a mural to cover half the building on the West San Carlos side to add pedestrian interest. The applicants have also added some elements of mid-century design through concrete blocks, a breeze-block- type design on the patio, and a ﬂat roof. For physical improvements, the applicants will also be required to create a 20-foot-wide sidewalk on San Carlos and a 15-foot-sidewalk along Race, and add a bulb-out to enhance pedestrian and traﬃc safety at the San Carlos and Race intersection.

Staﬀ believes that with these changes to the project and the nature of a restaurant (quick-service or otherwise), that the project generally conforms to the vision laid out in the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. Speciﬁcally, the project will improve sidewalks and streets, including major pedestrian improvements through widening sidewalks along both frontages, to allow better access to neighborhood goods and services near this site and beyond. The project also creates a restaurant on the corner which many residents in and around the urban village will be able to walk to, and those in other areas, including downtown, would be able to take transit to. The restaurant would create a private covered outdoor patio, a low-barrier gathering space which can be used by residents and customers, and provide a mural, integrating public art and improving the streetscape. The applicants also plan to work with the Oﬃce of Cultural Aﬀairs to have a local artist design the proposed mural.

In general, staﬀ acknowledges the description of the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area in the Urban Village plan (page 21), and that the area is envisioned for higher-density mixed-use and residential development over ground-ﬂoor retail. However, the controlling land use for the parcel is the land use designation and zoning, Urban Village, which is described in the Urban Village in the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area (page 26). This designation is explained as a commercial designation, supporting a broad range of commercial development, including retail and oﬃce. The land use designation does not require residential uses, but rather the inclusion of pedestrian-oriented, ground-ﬂoor commercial uses fronting West San Carlos Street. The project includes an entrance along West San Carlos, and staﬀ has worked with the applicant to include additional pedestrian interest and vibrancy along the street, as explained above.

Therefore, staﬀ believes that despite the lower-density nature of the project, it would help contribute to the urban fabric of West San Carlos Street and the plan area.

Generally speaking, this is likely not the highest and best use of the site, but as it is more likely than not to be a long-term use, staﬀ is not viewing this as an interim use. However, should the area continue to succeed and the land values increase, it becomes more possible that the site is wholly or partially redeveloped to a higher-density or mixed-use project; in any event, a typical restaurant/retail use and parking does not preclude redevelopment of the site, or a portion thereof, in the future. The chance of this happening with a commercial project and (especially) a parking lot is much higher than it would be with, for example, low or medium density residential. In fact, and while not intimating that this will happen at the site, staﬀ has found examples of standalone sites of this restaurant being incorporated into a larger mixed-use project, so this may occur if market conditions are correct. In any event, staﬀ is not relying on General Plan policy IE-1.11 regarding interim uses in formulating the recommendation for this project, as on balance, the project would be more likely to be long-term if constructed.

For more detailed responses to each of the General and Urban Village Plan policies included in your letter, please see the following appendix; at this time, staﬀ generally believes that although the project may not be strictly in conformance with all policies (and in fact, no project is strictly in conformance with all policies), the project is, on balance, consistent with the General and Urban Village Plans and their policies.

Ultimately, staﬀ must review projects when, where, and how applicants apply for them, and formulate a recommendation on a project’s own merits, not on the merits of past projects or potential future projects on or oﬀ the site. In considering this project, we ultimately believe that we can ﬁnd a commercial project in conformance with the Urban Village designation and zone, and generally in conformance with the policies listed below (and other policies not listed below). We are sympathetic to these concerns and have and will 6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 4/9 continue to relay these messages to the applicant, including the policies referenced in your letter. Staﬀ will also continue to encourage improvements to the proposed site plan, but ultimately, staﬀ must follow the policies and process the application, and recommend approval if we can ﬁnd conformance with the General and Urban Village plans, the Municipal Code, the Citywide Design Standards, and City Council policies.

Appendix: Speciﬁc Responses to General and Urban Village Plan Policies Policy Staﬀ Response
GP IE-1.11 Per above, staﬀ agrees this is not an interim use. However, we believe the project is generally in conformance with the allowed uses of the UV designation and zoning of the site.

GP IE-2.7 A commercial project by deﬁnition provides job opportunities and sales taxes, which helps support city services and infrastructure. A larger project may provide more job opportunities and more sales taxes, but we are obligated to review and process the application on ﬁle.

GP IE-6.2 A quick service restaurant can provide jobs for residents of all skill and education levels, including “unskilled” labor to managerial level positions.

WSCUVP LU-1.1 The 0.3 FAR is not met, but the policy says to encourage this. Staﬀ has encouraged the applicant at every turn to meet an FAR of 0.3 across the development, pursuant to the language of the policy. No minimum FAR is indicated in the General Plan, Urban Village Plan, or Zoning code for UV- designated and zoned sites.

WSCUVP LU-3.1 Staﬀ has encouraged this, but the applicant has made it clear that they are not intending to build an intense mixed-use development. A commercial-only use is permitted in a commercial land use designation and zoning.

WSCUVP UD-1.2 Staﬀ from multiple departments have tried our best to maintain a mid- century modern design while meeting various requirements, keeping some texture through concrete blocks and including a breeze-block-type design on the patio, including a ﬂat roof, and reconﬁguring the interior to add windows on the street frontages while still meeting interior design requirements. Ultimately, the project will have some frontage-facing windows and will upgrade the streetscape along West San Carlos to make the area more pedestrian-friendly.

WSCUVP UD-6.3 Staﬀ has encouraged the applicant at every turn to reduce the amount of parking, and will continue to do so. However, the applicant has been insistent on the amount of parking and has relayed that the project is not feasible without this amount of parking spaces. Ultimately, City code has eliminated minimum parking requirements, but has not included maximum parking restrictions, so the applicant is able to choose the amount of parking they ﬁnd appropriate for their project. Staﬀ also notes that should the market or the corridor evolve such that the amount of parking proposed is no longer necessary, the majority of the parking lot could be redeveloped to another commercial or mixed use under the Urban Village Plan.

GP IE-1.5 Staﬀ notes that a quick-service restaurant is an employment use.

GP IE-1.6 This proposal would allow people to take transit to visit or work at the restaurant, including from other transit-rich areas of the City.

GP FS-3.6 Per the above, staﬀ believes the on balance, the project does conform to the Urban Village Plan
GP FS-4.7 Staﬀ notes that as explained above, the project will provide beneﬁts through the creation of new pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) pursuant to the General and Urban Village plans.
6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 5/9 GP FS-4.8 Staﬀ notes that the project creates job and commercial opportunities near residential development.

GP MS-10.5 Staﬀ interprets this to mean that the project should meet site design guidelines and encourage the use of public transit through transit incentives. The project generally meets site design guidelines, with one deviation (two driveways) required for service vehicle circulation. The project is encouraged to provide transit incentives; however, there is no requirement to do so; staﬀ will require this if it is found that it is required through a Local Transportation Analysis, but this is unlikely.

GP MS-14.1 This project is a job-providing commercial project in a commercial zone.

GP MS-21.4 In short, many of these trees are being removed due to the City’s zoning requirements (10-foot maximum setbacks), in combination with the trees being in close proximity to the building; the City’s requirements for expanding sidewalks along the property lines; and the health of the trees (large decaying wounds, girdling roots, embedded with a chain link fence, etc.). Staﬀ continues to ask for the retention of some of the trees which do not have these issues, although this may not be possible due to the nature of how the trees were originally planted (in small planters).

GP VN-1.6 The project is being asked by the City to provide a 20-foot attached sidewalk along West San Carlos, with tree wells at the back of curb. Some landscaping and water drainage is needed to meet the regional stormwater requirements; however, staﬀ continues to work with the applicant on potentially moving the building and changing the landscaping to increase engagement opportunities with the mural, which will cover much of the non-windowed area along San Carlos.

GP VN-1.11 This project does not include late-night uses, unlike the prior use, and due to the discontinuance of that use, does not inherit the legal non- conforming condition. The project is buﬀered from surrounding developments in a manner consistent with the Code and Citywide Design Standards.

GP CD-1.12 While the interior design meets the needs of a franchise restaurant, the exterior does not reﬂect a franchise design (this is like old Pizza Huts, Mimi’s Café, etc.), in that any retail establishment could comfortably move into the physical building with tenant improvements. The project does provide a convenient means of entry from both San Carlos and Race Streets, and we continue to work with the applicant on the pedestrian frontage along San Carlos. Staﬀ believes the project generally meets mid- century modern through the texture, ﬂat roof, and breeze-block-like design at the patio.

GP CD-1.17 The provided parking is not provided on the more active street (West San Carlos). The project meets the Citywide Design Standard screening requirements along Race Street, and to the buildings to the north and east.

GP CD-2.3 Staﬀ is working with the applicant to make major improvements to the frontage and sidewalk along West San Carlos and will require a mural on the building to create additional visual interest. The building corner is accessible along both frontages. VTA has moved the transit stop previously in front of the building to the Walgreens site, and is instructing the applicant to remove the bus pad should the project move forward.

Therefore, there is no transit stop to be integrated into the project design.

GP CD-3.9 Staﬀ has worked with the applicant on this, but the conﬁguration of the lot requires two driveways for service vehicles to meet the required turn 6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 6/9 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] radii. A Local Transportation Analysis is under review and may result in other improvements on and around the project site; the project is also being required to expand the sidewalk on Race Street to expand sight distance, while creating a bulbout at the intersection to improve pedestrian safety.

WSCUVP LU-2.6
The project never proposed a drive-through, and this particular company has begun to propose restaurants without drive-throughs in multiple Bay Area cities. In any event, drive-throughs are speciﬁcally prohibited in this Urban Village and would not be allowed.

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Greg Ripa
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:38 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]> Subject: Re: H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Jason,
Attached are my comments regarding this project. In general, I am opposed to this project because it does not ﬁt in well with the Urban Village.

Thank you,
Greg

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 5:43 PM Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello everyone,

As the Interested Parties list has grown quite substantially since this notice ﬁrst went out, I would like to make sure that everyone receives this information regarding the community meeting. Especially note that we do expect that each speaker will be limited to
one minute during public comment. If you have
additional comments that do not ﬁt within one minute (or if you are unable to attend the community meeting), please feel free to send comments to me before or after the community meeting.

I also would like to let everyone know that third submittal plans are now available online at https://permits.sanjoseca.gov/api/public-portal/permit/attachment?attachmentRSN=345224

Thanks,
Jason
6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 7/9

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

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Lee, Jason
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 4:03 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos) Community Meeting 3/27

Hello everyone,

This is a notice for a Community Meeting for the 1301 W San Carlos Chick-ﬁl-A project (File No. H24-046) on Zoom on Thursday, March 27 at 6:30 pm. The Zoom link will be https://sanjoseca.zoom.us/j/98038029038, and the City’s meeting landing page (including postcard and agenda) is at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7395/4953. If needed, you can call into the meeting at 408-638-0968 or 888-475-4499 and enter the Meeting ID, 980 3802 9038.

Due to the amount of interest in the project, we expect that each speaker will be limited to one minute during public comment, so please anticipate this. If you have additional comments that do not ﬁt within one minute, please feel free to send them to me before or after the community meeting.

You are receiving this e-mail because you are on the Interested Parties list for this project. If you live within 1,000 feet of the project site, you will also be receiving a postcard notice in the mail. Please feel free to inform your neighbors about this meeting, and you or they can contact me if you have any questions about this.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 8/9 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.

6/4/25, 1:02 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 9/9 To: City of San Jose staff, District 6 Councilmember Michael Mulcahy, and Project Applicants
From: Greg Ripa, nearby resident on Lincoln Ave between Park and San Carlos Re: File No. H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos)

I am not opposed to redevelopment in the area. In general, I encourage it in a way that maximizes the potential use of the Urban Village process. During the community meetings for the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, I continually advocated for greater densities and higher building heights in the plan.

I oppose this development project. Why? It is not dense; it is auto oriented; and it does not meet various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. More details and facts to support these positions can be found below in the various sections about why the plan does not meet those various intents, goals, policies, and standards.

San Jose General Plan
The San Jose General Plan does not support this development project because this project does not meet the intents and policies set forth in this document.

This project is located within the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, which is a Local Transit Urban Village. As the general plan states, “Local Transit Urban Villages… are planned for a balanced mix of job and housing growth at relatively high densities with greater emphasis placed upon building complete communities at each Urban Village location while also supporting use of the local transit system.” Unfortunately, this project does not support the intent of the urban villages because it is not a relatively high- density use.

IE-1.11 Allow interim development of employment lands with alternative employment uses such as small expansions of existing uses or reuse of existing buildings when the interim development would not limit the site’s ability to be redeveloped in the future in accordance with the long-term plan for the site.

This site is over 1 acre in size. There are relatively few parcels and aggregations of parcels that meet this size. The Urban Village Plan specifically calls out that residential development shouldn’t happen at sizes less than 0.5 acres in size, showing how important large parcels are to the success of the plan. Therefore, we should preserve these large parcel sizes for the best potential uses, not creating new low-density buildings that may stymie future high-density development.

Since a new building and new parking lot may limit this relatively large site’s ability to redevelop, and since this project is not a small expansion of an existing building or re-use of an existing building, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

FS-3.4 Promote land use policy and implementation actions that improve our City’s fiscal sustainability. Maintain or enhance the City’s projected total net revenue through amendments made to this General Plan in each Review process. Discourage proposed rezonings or other discretionary land use actions that could significantly diminish revenue to the City or significantly increase its service costs to the City without offsetting increases in revenue.

The existing buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf. This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf! Reducing the size of commercial square footage may reduce the tax benefits of the area due to the reduction in square footage of commercial space. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

FS-4.1 Preserve and enhance employment land acreage and building floor area capacity for various employment activities because they provide revenue, near-term jobs, contribute to our City’s long-term achievement of economic development and job growth goals, and provide opportunities for the development of retail to serve individual neighborhoods, larger community areas, and the Bay Area.

As mentioned previously, this project reduces the commercial square footage by over 1,800sf. Thus, this project neither preserves nor enhances employment (commercial) land. Less commercial square footage may lead to less commercial jobs. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

FS-4.8 Emphasize mixed-use development for most new development, to achieve service efficiencies from compact development patterns and to maximize job development and commercial opportunities near residential development This project is located in an Urban Village and is zones for the Urban Village zoning designation, which is a high-density mixed-use designation. This project proposes a low-density single use development. This land is perfect for high- density mixed-use development due to its zoning, lot size, transit adjacency, etc.

Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

CD-1.11 To create a more pleasing pedestrian-oriented environment, for new building frontages, include design elements with a human scale, varied and articulated facades using a variety of materials, and entries oriented to public sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. Provide windows or entries along sidewalks and pathways; avoid blank walls that do not enhance the pedestrian experience. Encourage inviting, transparent façades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays.

There is more detail provided later in the Design Standards section, but this project proposes large blank walls along the primary pedestrian oriented street of San Carlos and is generally auto oriented due to the amount and type of doors and glazing along the parking lot side of the building vs. the active street frontage side of the building. There is not enough transparency to see into active ground floor uses from San Carlos. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

CD-1.17 Minimize the footprint and visibility of parking areas.

The existing buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) have a total of about 56 to 58 parking spaces (some are unmarked so it is hard to determine an exact number). This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new parking lot of 60 spaces. Thus, this project proposes to increase the parking in a pedestrian oriented area. Rather than minimizes the amount of parking, this project maximizes it. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

CD-2.10 Recognize that finite land area exists for development and that density supports retail vitality and transit ridership. Use land use regulations to require compact, low-impact development that efficiently uses land planned for growth, especially for residential development which tends to have a long life-span.

As discussed previously for policies IE-1.11 and FS-3.4, this project is creating a low-density development where we have a finite amount of high-density development potential such as this relatively large parcel. This project does not use the finite amount of land we have in this Urban Village to its fullest potential (or even to the half-full potential). Thus, this project does not support the density intended for an Urban Village so does not efficiently use this land. Thus, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

CD-2.11 Within the Downtown and Urban Village Area Boundaries, consistent with the minimum density requirements of the applicable Land Use / Transportation Diagram designation, avoid the construction of surface parking lots except as an interim use, so that long-term development of the site will result in a cohesive urban form As discussed in Policy CD-1.17, this project proposes to expand the amount of parking on site as compared to the existing amount of parking. Therefore, this project does not meet the spirit of this policy.

CD-7.1 Support intensive development and uses within Urban Villages As discussed previously, this project has a smaller building size than the existing uses. It is a low density use at about .11 FAR and does not even come close to the maximum building FARs allowed in an urban village (3.5 at the low end and 10+ at the higher ends). Therefore, this project is not an intensive use, but is a mild use of the land. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

The appropriate density for mixed-use projects is that which can be accommodated under a maximum FAR of 10.0, or as determined by a more specific density range established within the Urban Village Plan. For projects that are wholly employment uses, a lower FAR than indicated in the Urban Village Plan is also appropriate to facilitate development of interim employment uses.

A lower FAR should be at least the neighborhood/ community commercial amount at about 3.0 FAR. As discussed previously, this project does not meet this threshold at all. Thus, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

LU-5.3 Encourage new and intensification of existing commercial development, including stand-alone, vertical mixed-use, or integrated horizontal mixed-use projects, consistent with the Land Use / Transportation Diagram.

As mentioned previously, this project reduces the commercial square footage by over 1,800sf. Thus, this project is not an intensification of existing commercial development. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

LU-10.1 Develop land use plans and implementation tools that result in the construction of mixed-use development in appropriate places throughout the City as a means to establish walkable, complete communities.

The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan is the land use plan and implementation tool to support mixed use development on this site. However, the project is proposing a low-density single use development which will not result in the construction of a mixed-use development in this appropriate part of the city.

Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

LU-10.4 Within identified growth areas, develop residential projects at densities sufficient to support neighborhood retail in walkable, main street type development.

As mentioned previously, the project is proposing a low-density single use development which will not result in the construction of any residential housing units. Thus, a residential project will not be developed at this relatively large Urban Village site. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

LU-10.7 Encourage consolidation of parcels to promote mixed-use and high-density development at locations identified in the Land use / Transportation Diagram.

This project is proposing to consolidate some parcels together, which is actually good! However, it is not being used to promote mixed-use and high-density development, but rather single use and low-density development. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

West San Carlos Urban Village Plan
The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan does not support this development project because this project does not meet the intents, objectives, and policies set forth in this document.

The area is envisioned with higher-density mixed-use and residential development...

Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active ground floor retail.

The Urban Village designation in the Mixed-use Residential Character Area is a commercial designation which supports residential development only on parcels meeting a minimum size of 0.5 acres. Residential development along West San Carlos Street or Meridian Avenue should include pedestrian oriented, ground- floor commercial uses that front the street... Before a site meets the aforementioned development criteria, the uses allowed on parcels with a Urban Village land use designation are those uses allowed within the Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation… Neighborhood/Community Commercial Density: FAR up to 3.5 Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses typically have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the nearby community. These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction.

As mentioned previously, this is a relatively large site of about 1 acre but the proposed redevelopment is not pedestrian oriented and is not mixed use. Also, since this could be considered a site before it meets the development criteria, would it meet the use criteria of Neighborhood/ Community Commercial which promotes a form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction? No, this project does not. It is still auto-oriented, not pedestrian oriented (see more information about the auto orientation in the Design Standards section). It is a very low FAR or 0.11, nowhere near the maximum for Urban Village or even Neighborhood/ Community Commercial of 3.0+. Therefore, this project does not meet the intent of the Urban Village designation in the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

A primary objective of this Plan is to retain the existing amount of commercial space within the West San Carlos Urban Village area and increase commercial activity and employment opportunities as the area redevelops.

As mentioned in the discussion of General Plan Policy FS-3.4, the existing buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf and this project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf! Thus, this project does not retain the existing amount of commercial space and may reduce the commercial activity and employment opportunities.

Therefore, this project does not meet this primary objective of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

Additionally, since the West San Carlos Urban Village will focus on the pedestrian, new drive through uses are not supported. New auto oriented uses are prohibited.

This project does not focus on the pedestrian due to the proposed large blank walls along San Carlos Street and the auto-oriented building (more information in the Design Standards section). While the building does not have a drive through and is not considered an auto oriented “use”, the project still does not meet this intent of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

Policy LU-1.1: Encourage new commercial development to be built at Floor Area Ratios of 0.3 or greater.

The project proposes to build at an FAR of 0.11, which is only about 36% of the minimum FAR of this policy. This project does not meet the minimum FAR size required. Therefore, this project does not meet this policy of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

Encourage active ground floor edges with retail storefronts, cafés, restaurants, outdoor dining, and common areas for development within residential and mixed-use designated areas… Maximize use of non-colored, non-reflective glass windows to increase transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the ground floor.

As discussed in further detail in the Design Standards section below, the project proposes to place a “patterned vinyl film” on the windows and doors facing San Carlos, thereby reducing the transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the primary pedestrian corridor. Further, there are large blank walls along San Carlos, further reducing this transparency. Therefore, this project does not meet this policy of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

Design Standards
The San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines do not support this development project because this project does not meet the standards set forth in this document.

Ground floors with active frontages create engaging streets that are comfortable to use and visually appealing for pedestrians.

This plan does not create an active street frontage and is primarily auto oriented.

For example, there are 3 sets of doors (1 public double, 1 public single, and 1 employee single) plus 3 sets of windows (2 in public areas and 1 in employee area) facing the parking lot, whereas there are 2 sets of doors (1 public and 1 employee) and plus 3 sets of windows (1 in public area and 2 in employee area).

Further, the windows along the primary street (San Carlos) are proposed to have “patterned vinyl film” on them, which I would consider an opaque or semi- opaque building element and may obscure viewing in or out of those windows, whereas the parking lot side is proposed to have transparent (clear) glass without any film. This imbalance, particularly with the number and transparency of the doors and windows, makes the building feel more auto oriented than pedestrian oriented.

S2. Create transparent façades with windows or clear glazing for at least 70 percent of the active frontage length along primary streets or public open spaces and 50 percent of the active frontage length along secondary streets (see Fig 4.3 and 4.5).

In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Further, there is more glazing and active uses proposed for the secondary street (Race Street). Therefore, this building plan does not meet this design standard. To fix this issue, the Dining Room and glazing should be placed along the length of San Carlos, not Race.

S4. Windows and clear glazing on the ground floor façade must have no opaque or semi-opaque building elements wider than two inches or spaced more closely than five feet between 3 to 10 vertical feet from the sidewalk.

In the plans, the glazing along San Carlos is intended to have “patterned vinyl film”, which I would consider an opaque or semi-opaque building element wider than 2”. Thus, this plan does not meet this design standard.

Blank walls make places feel uninviting and sometimes unsafe. Minimizing long stretches of unbroken façades and non-active frontages, such as parking garages and service and utility areas, creates an active and safe public realm. Standards S1. Limit continuous blank walls on the ground floor to less than 30 feet along primary street façades and 50 feet along secondary street façades (see Fig. 4.13).

In the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos, so this plan does not meet this design standard.

How I Would Support a Development
As mentioned previously, I continually advocated for greater densities and higher building heights in the Urban Village planning process. Thus, I support projects that adhere to the Urban Village Plan, are pedestrian oriented, are mixed use, and are high density. This particular project is none of those things.

If a project were proposed that is mixed use, high density (FAR 6.0+), and pedestrian oriented and also happened to have a ChickFilA in it, then I would support that project since it fulfills the intent and vision of the Urban Village plan. Until such a time comes that this project transforms from low density to high density, from single use to mixed use, and from auto oriented to pedestrian oriented, I will oppose this project. Said another way, the greater the density, pedestrian orientation, and mix of uses, the greater I will advocate for a project. But, since this project is at the low end of those spectrums, I will strongly oppose it.

Therefore, please reject this project as currently proposed and ask the applicant to come back with a higher density (FAR 6.0+), mixed use, pedestrian oriented project.

Thank you for your consideration!
To: City of San Jose staff, District 6 Councilmember Michael Mulcahy, and Project Applicants
From: Greg Ripa, nearby resident on Lincoln Ave between Park and San Carlos Re: File No. H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos)
Date: March 27, 2025

As mentioned in my public comment at the public meeting on the evening of March 27, 2025, I oppose this development project. Why? It is not dense; it is auto oriented; and it does not meet various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Staff has indicated/ hinted that they are ok with a single use low density development. If so, it is still not pedestrian oriented, as described in the various plans and policies.

San Jose General Plan
CD-1.1 Require the highest standards of architectural and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.

City staff should reject the project for not meeting the pedestrian-oriented intent of the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and for not meeting various policies, objectives, and standards that reinforce that intent. Staff should apply strong design controls to the site plan and reject any plan that is not pedestrian oriented, which would include this project as currently proposed.

CD-1.5 Encourage incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas or squares, into new and existing commercial and mixed-use developments.

Staff should ask the applicant to make the outdoor patio a privately owned public space (POPS) so that the public can legally use it at times when the restaurant is closed.

CD-1.9 Give the greatest priority to developing high-quality pedestrian facilities in areas that will most promote transit use and bicycle and pedestrian activity. In pedestrian- oriented areas such as Downtown, Urban Villages, or along Main Streets, place commercial and mixed-use building frontages at or near the street-facing property line with entrances directly to the public sidewalk, provide high-quality pedestrian facilities that promote pedestrian activity, including adequate sidewalk dimensions for both circulation and outdoor activities related to adjacent land uses, a continuous tree canopy, and other pedestrian amenities.

As mentioned in my previous letter, the site is not pedestrian oriented. Only one corner public entrance is located on the corner whereas two public entrances are located facing the parking lot. There are more transparent windows facing the parking lot and less numerous opaque windows facing San Carlos Street.

Landscaping is placed between the building and the sidewalk, where in a pedestrian oriented building, the building would front directly onto the sidewalk.

There is a large wall along the pedestrian-oriented San Carlos Street and a mural is supposed to be required, but a mural does not make the sidewalk more vibrant than more transparent windows and doors. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy so staff should reject the project on this ground.

Proposed San Carlos Façade showing lack of pedestrian orientation Blank Wall
Minimal Opaque Windows Hidden Door on Corner

Proposed northern façade at parking lot showing auto orientation CD-1.11 To create a more pleasing pedestrian-oriented environment, for new building frontages, include design elements with a human scale, varied and articulated facades using a variety of materials, and entries oriented to public sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. Provide windows or entries along sidewalks and pathways; avoid blank walls that do not enhance the pedestrian experience. Encourage inviting, transparent façades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays.

Only one public corner entry opens to the sidewalk. Two additional public entries open to the parking lot. There are more windows along the parking lot side and they are all transparent. There are fewer windows on the San Carlos Street side and they have an opaque film on them. There is a large blank wall (which should be reserved for the parking lot, not the streetscape). This façade along San Carlos is not inviting nor is it transparent to reveal what is taking place inside of the building. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy so staff should reject the project on this ground.

More Clear Windows
Multiple Entrances
West San Carlos Urban Village Plan
Ground Floor Interface:

2. Maximize use of non-colored, non-reflective glass windows to increase transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the ground floor

3. Provide shade for glass windows and doors along West San Carlos Street to afford climate protection for pedestrians. Incorporate generously-sized awnings, vertical screens, covered arcades, or walkways into buildings.

7. Discourage uninterrupted blank walls or façades. Where such blank walls are necessary, apply landscape screens, display boxes/ merchandise displays, light patterns, material variations, or other mitigation measures to enhance visual interest.

As discussed above under General Plan Policys CD-1.9 and CD-1.11, the project proposes to maximize the use of opaque glass treatments, rather than transparent treatments as required by this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. If shading the interior is an issue, incorporation of awnings, screens that hang over the sidewalk, covered arcades, etc. could be used instead. In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Further, there is more glazing and active uses proposed for the secondary street (Race Street). Further, in the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos Street. Therefore, this project does not meet the elements described in this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

Sustainable Elements:

1. Encourage building development that integrates passive and active sustainable design elements and responds to San José’s climate.

As mentioned previously, if shading the interior is an issue, incorporation of passive design elements like awnings, screens that hang over the sidewalk, covered arcades, etc. could be used instead of vinyl film on the glazing.

Design Standards
Ground floors with active frontages create engaging streets that are comfortable to use and visually appealing for pedestrians.

As discussed previously, this project does not create an active street frontage and is primarily auto oriented with more (transparent) windows and doors facing the parking lot than facing the street.

In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos Street) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Further, there is more glazing and active uses proposed for the secondary street (Race Street). Therefore, this building plan does not meet this design standard.

In the plans, the glazing along San Carlos Street is intended to have “patterned vinyl film”, which is considered an opaque or semi-opaque building element wider than 2”. Therefore, this plan does not meet this design standard.

In the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos, so this plan does not meet this design standard.

Suggested Changes to the Project
To comply with the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines, the project should be redesigned. Below are some suggested changes that may make the project compliant with the issues discussed in the previous sections of this letter, but a scale rendering would need to be made first to confirm this.

First, flip the building so that there are more doors and windows along the San Carlos Street side. This would also have a complementary effect of reducing the length of the blank walls.

Added 2 public entrances to San Carlos
Added more visual interest to
streetscape with dining room, queue,
and ordering areas within view
Reduced blank wall
size on San Carlos Street
Less entrances and
windows on parking lot
side = less auto oriented
Second, ensure that the doors and glazing along San Carlos Street are transparent and do not have any “patterned vinyl film”. Ideally, the size and number of windows along San Carlos Street would also be increased from even what is shown in these suggested changes so that 70% of that frontage is transparent door and window glazing. This second suggested change would also include removal of the landscaping between the building and the sidewalk so that all 3 to 4 (or more) building entrances facing the sidewalk are easily accessible and pedestrian oriented.

Fourth, if needed to provide passive shading to the interior of the building, the southern San Carlos Street façade should be redesigned to include passive shading elements like screens or awnings. An example of that is below.

Third, ensure that any large blank walls face the parking lot, and not the streets.

With these changes, this low-density project, which I wish were mixed-use and higher- density, would at least be more pedestrian oriented and fit better (but not great) into the West San Carlos Urban Village.

Recommendation to Staff
Until the project is changed based on the suggested changes above (or similar changes), the staff must evaluate the project as proposed. As discussed previously, this proposed project as-is does not meet the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines as described above; therefore, staff should “apply strong design controls to the site plan” and reject this plan as currently proposed.

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Chick-fil-A on West San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-04-02 08:56
To 'Anirudh Karki'
Hi Anirudh,

Thanks for your e-mail, and your opposition is noted. I’ll put you on the Interested Parties list and notify you when the hearing for this project is scheduled.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Anirudh Karki
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 8:19 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Chick-ﬁl-A on West San Carlos

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

I am a resident of D6 and want to voice my opposition against the upcoming Chick-ﬁl-A project on West San Carlos St. There is a reason San Jose will never become a vibrant walkable city and it's because we keep approving car centric projects in our urban villages.

I know this project will ﬁt some ﬂimsy deﬁnition of an urban village establishment but who are we kidding. Hoping we do better in the future!

Thanks,
Anirudh Karki

6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 Outlook
RE: Written comments regarding the Chick-Fil-A proposed for West San Carlos at Race From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-04-01 10:09
To 'Loui Tucker'
Hi Loui,

I have asked for changes to their plan (most notably FAR and the size of the parking lot, which I bring up pretty much every time we meet; I also have asked for reconsideration of tree removal) throughout this process, and there have been some
changes made to the plans in response to our comments. While applicants usually make changes requested by planning, they do not have to do so. If the applicant asks for the project to go to hearing with comments outstanding, staﬀ ultimately will have to look at the ﬁnal submitted plans and evaluate those for compliance and if that plan can meet the required ﬁndings and bring the project to hearing.

Regarding consideration of the land use – this refers more to the identity of the applicant and how that cannot be considered (i.e. we can’t consider the identity or political stances of an applicant while evaluating the project – we can evaluate land use only). Overall, however, staﬀ can only consider the required ﬁndings based on the ﬁnal proposed project. If staﬀ believes the project can meet the required ﬁndings despite refusing staﬀ’s suggestions, then we will still recommend approval; if we believe the project cannot meet the required ﬁndings, then we would recommend denial.

Just to note – a community meeting was held last week; the purpose of this was to give more information about the project, about how staﬀ is approaching project, and for neighbors to provide input on the project. Chick-ﬁl-A can choose to incorporate the feedback or not in their plans, and we will evaluate based on the ﬁnal submitted plans to form a ﬁnal recommendation. A
public hearing will be held when everything is ready, and the Director/his representative, and Planning Commission/City Council on appeal, will decide if they agree or disagree with staﬀ and to approve or deny the project. I believe I’ve mentioned before to you that the City is not bound by the Housing Accountability Act on this commercial project, so the ﬁnal decisionmaker is not required by State law to approve the project.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 9:12 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Written comments regarding the Chick-Fil-A proposed for West San Carlos at Race 6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/4

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

Jason -
YOU WROTE:
...staﬀ is obligated by State law to review private development projects when, where, and how they are applied for.

We also would like to note that ultimately what is under review is a proposal to construct a building and associated site changes (i.e. demo of the existing building and the parking lot/stormwater system/landscaping, etc.). We are limited by our ﬁndings to consider the land use only – so basically if the building and site plan are appropriate for the site. We can’t consider the applicant’s identity or labor practices in the application, as they aren’t a part of our ﬁndings – this is because in theory (and we understand this is extremely unlikely), should this project be approved and CFA backs out, a developer could build the building, remove the branding, and have a diﬀerent tenant move in without a Planning permit so long as it is an approved use in the UV zone.

You can't limit anything or change anything or any say "Pretty please, the neighbors don't like what you're doing so could you please make a few small changes? Please?" So...why was there a public hearing held? Was there anything, anything at all, that could have been said, that would change the plan one iota?
Loui
On 3/28/2025 2:16 PM, Lee, Jason wrote:

Hi Loui,

Thanks very much for your comments, and it is appreciated. No need to send this as text; we’re able to extract this into the record.

For your direct questions –

1. I do not know (and applicants/business owners are not obliged to divulge) the breakdown of full-time and part-time jobs for CFA, nor at the existing businesses on the site. (In fact, the existing businesses at the site are not obligated to engage with us at all – I spoke with the owner’s son at Eduardo’s, left my information, and requested a call to speak with the owner regarding some questions I continue to have, but have not to date received one.) I would recommend contacting CFA and the existing businesses directly to see if they are willing to give you this information.

2. Regarding parking – City Council eliminated minimum parking requirements Citywide in December 2023, and did not impose maximum parking requirements. This means that staﬀ has no controls (minimum or maximum) on the amount of parking provided by the vast majority of projects in the City, although we have consistently asked for less parking to be provided with this project. Per the ordinance passed by Council, this project is also below the minimum threshold requiring a Transportation Demand Management plan, so staﬀ is unable to ask CFA to provide transit passes, etc. for employees through such a plan. As there is no minimum parking requirement, the size of the restaurant could conceivably be as big or as small as desired without regard to parking. That is to say – the number of seats and the size of the dining area are no longer constrained by the amount of parking provided. Current law would allow this development to occur with no vehicle parking. Staﬀ notes that under the 6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/4 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] repealed minimum parking requirement, the project’s requirement would have been 37 spaces, so they are providing more spaces than the previous minimum requirement.

Just to address the idea of requiring the applicant to do certain things (not demolish the building, keep the existing businesses, provide a smaller parking lot, etc.), staﬀ is obligated by State law to review private development projects when, where, and how they are applied for. Should an applicant request a ﬁle to be taken to hearing, the City is required to do so, regardless of recommendation. In this case, the applicant has chosen not to retain the existing building and businesses and to provide a large parking lot, so staﬀ must look at the required ﬁndings and form a recommendation based on the facts of the application on ﬁle. If they proposed something else, then we would review that, but ultimately they have the right to propose what they want on their parcel, and the right for a decision-maker to make a decision on their proposed project.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui
March 26, 2025 17:15
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Written comments regarding the Chick-Fil-A proposed for West San Carlos at Race

Jason -
I've attached a PDF of my comments/opposition to H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street].

If you prefer me to send the text as the body of an email, I can do that.

Loui Tucker
6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/4

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

6/4/25, 1:03 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 4/4 FROM: Loui Tucker

TO: City of San Jose – Planning Department

RE: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street ]

DATE: March 19, 2025

I fear that the City will approve the development of this property into a Chick -Fil-A (CFA) restaurant -- despite opposition from the neighbors , and despite its own commitment to walkable neighborhoods and high -density housing -- because they believe that something on the lot is better than an empty lot. It has been made very clear that, because the owner will not sell the land and will only lease it, building housing of any type is out of the question. With that in mind, I’d like to mitigate the damage the development as it is currently proposed will cause.

In case you don’t have time to read further, h ere are my major points:

1. IT DESTROYS THREE LOCAL BUSINESSES TO CREATE ONE.

2. IT ALLOWS CFA TO ELIMINATE DIRECT COMPETITION.

3. IT REMOVES TREES UNNECESSARILY.

4. A LARGE PARKING LOT IS NOT WARRANTED.

5. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE URBAN VILLAGE PLAN AND WALKABILITY?

DESTROY THREE BUSINESS TO CREATE ONE AND ELIMINATE THE COMPETITION?
In preparation for my statement that it would be a foolish decision from an economic standpoint, I would like to know the following:

1. Are the “100 new jobs” that this restaurant is suggesting it will bring (undated letter from Christine Cho, Development Manager for CFA, received March 14, 2025) all full-time jobs and, if not, how many will be part-time jobs? It has been the recent business strategy of many fast -food companies to offer jobs with weekly hours below the minimum that would require them to provide health care benefits, their theory being that a part-time job is better than no job at all.

2. How many jobs (full-time and part-time) are currently provided by the three existing businesses on the property (hair salon, nail salon, restaurant), that will be eliminated if this project is approved, and the CFA building is built ?

To say that 100 new jobs will be created is dishonest. The proposal calls for th e building housing the three businesses currently on the property to be demolished.

While the jobs generated by those businesses could possibly go elsewhere, there is no guarantee of that. I doubt any new jobs will be created, must less 100 of them. This is job replacement, not job generation.

In addition to the employment provided, the three business are currently paying taxes to the City for their licenses and on the income they generate. Three businesses will be replaced by one. Does that make economic sense?

I believe that CFA’s plan to demolish the existing building on the property to create a larger parking lot and driveway is misleading at best . I believe it is to create a larger parking lot (which is another issue), but to eliminate a popular neighborhood restaurant that would be direct competition. The closest other restaurants are the McDonalds across West San Carlos one block west, that focuses on beef, not chicken, and Pier 402 on the other side of Race Street one block north, which focuses on seafood. Eduardo’s Taqueria, which serves lots of chicken, has been a staple in this neighborhood for decades and has a loyal following in the local Latino population that lives nearby. I am certain a large portion of the desire to demolish the building is to remove a direct threat that the popular taqueria creates.

If the City were to require the developer to maintain the building that houses the hair salon, nail salon and the taqueria , telling them that the existing parking lot is sufficient in size , and it makes no business sense to eliminate three businesses to create one -- will the developer drop the idea because the competition is allowed to remain?

DESTROYING TREES IS SOMEHOW BENEFICIAL?
The CFA proposal calls for the removal of 20 existing trees to create the largest parking lot possible and the largest restaurant possible. I have been told it is also to allow for the large construction vehicles to maneuver on the lot and clearance needs to be maximized. I do not believe all the trees need to be removed.

I doubt the assessment that they all need to be removed, with a particular eye toward the statement that they are diseased , damaged, or failing in some fashion. I would suggest having a neutral arborist evaluate the trees.

Noticing that the patio that is proposed is on the EAST side of the proposed restaurant, moving it to the WEST side will put it under the existing trees and eliminate the need to remove the trees on the east side to allow for construction of the restaurant.

If the aim of CFA is to “be an integral part of the community by fostering connection s with our neighborhood” (undated letter from Christine Cho, Development Manager for CFA, received March 14, 2025) , then eliminating the benefit of having mature trees should be seen as contraindicated.

SIZE MATTERS
Creating a 78-seat restaurant with 60 parking spaces seems to imply that someone anticipate s having a large number of people drive to the restaurant. Doesn’t the prevailing wisdom call for encouraging walking and getting people out of their cars in order to reduce pollution? If the aim of CFA is to “be an integral part of the community by fostering connections with our neighborhood” (undated letter from Christine Cho, Development Manager for CFA, received March 14, 2025), then creating a restaurant to specifically attract/encourage drivers to come and park should be seen as duplicitous.

Why are there so many parking spots? Are employees going to be taking up parking spaces? Or will they be told to take public transit or park in the neighborhood in order to keep the parking lot clear for paying customers?

Does someone anticipate 60 diners each arriving in his/her own car? If 60 people were to come in pairs, it would only require 30 parking spaces. If the entire restaurant is full – using all 78 spaces – and 60 of them come in pairs, there would still be room for another 18 of them to come in single cars.

In addition, a quick poll of local restaurants should tell you what percentage of their business is done with Doordash, Uber -Eats, Grubhub, and the like. Those folks picking up take-out for people wanting to eat at home or in their office will use a parking space for under 10 minutes, also reducing the need for a 60-space parking lot.

Is it the City’s requirement that there be .75 parking spaces per seat in the restaurant? If that is so, why not suggest that the restaurant’s capacity be reduced to 60 seats, thereby reducing the size of the parking lot to 45 spaces ? That would eliminate the need to demolish the existing building housing the three businesses (and specifically eliminating CFA’s competition). Would the development go forward with if those modifications were to be required for the permit to build to be granted?

San Jose needs housing, not another fast-food restaurant. The City claims to support walkability and high-density development, yet this proposal ignores those priorities. If the owner refuses to sell the land for housing, the City should require the developer to keep the existing businesses.

This project doesn’t benefit our community. It serves an absentee land owner and corporate profits. The City should stand with local businesses and residents and demand a better solution for our neighborhood.

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
RE: Chik Fil A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-04-07 17:48
To 'Gilberto Campos'
Hi Gilberto,

Thanks for your e-mail. Your opposition to the project is noted.

Staﬀ notes that this is a private development application, and we are obligated under State law to review private projects when, where, and how an application is made and bring the project to a hearing if the applicant desires.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Gilberto Campos
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 14:49
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Chik Fil A

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Do not build that Chik Fil A at the corner of Race and San Carlos. It would cause so much traﬃc and tear down a beloved local Mexican food spot. We don't need it and we don't want it.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/1

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: New Chik-Fil-A at 1301 W San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-04-07 17:51
To 'Arquimedes Ponce'
Hi Arquimedes,

Thanks for your e-mail. Your opposition is noted. Staﬀ notes that this is a private development application, and we are obligated under State law to review projects when, where, and how they are submitted and bring the project to a hearing if the applicant desires.

We also note that before this project was submitted, there was a diﬀerent application for a mixed-use project on the site, which was withdrawn prior to hearing. However, that is not the application on ﬁle at this time, so we cannot review that or take that into account in this review.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Arquimedes Ponce
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 13:50
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: New Chik-Fil-A at 1301 W San Carlos

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Just writing to express that putting a single story Chik ﬁl a there is such an enormous waste.

Unless they are also oﬀering to build ﬁve stories of housing above the restaurant this should absolutely not be approved.

That's it thanks.

6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street - Chick-Fil-A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-04-07 18:22
To 'Loui Tucker'
Hi Loui,

Thanks for this. Regarding a site visit, I did go out there about a month ago. I think the short answer is that while I’m not an arborist, all but two were sprouting at the time, but I was able to generally corroborate the arborist’s reports on the physical condition of the trees. I don’t think this ended up coming up at the community meeting, but I was reminded by my team while preparing for it that if a decisionmaker chooses to reject the health of the trees as a reason to remove them, they could still approve the tree removals by ﬁnding the trees unreasonably restrict the economic development of the parcel in question – I don’t know ultimately if this will be something that comes up or not in their deliberations, but just letting you know to be transparent.

I sent the text of the e-mail in full to the applicant for their consideration (and did not include your name).

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 16:03
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: H24-046 [1301 West San Carlos Street - Chick-Fil-A

Jason -
I want to make one more plea to save the trees at 1301 West San Carlos.

First, would you please make another site visit? Do all of those trees look unhealthy to you? I drive my them almost daily and they certainly look green, leafy, and healthy to me. Why cut down these massive shade-and- 6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. oxygen providers if it's not necessary?
You have made it clear that the developer holds all the cards, that you can do little more than make suggestions, and can pretty much do what they want, but I'd like to make one last attempt at a change that will beneﬁt them and the neighborhood:

If the patio they have described in their plan is on the EAST side, it will be un-shaded all day. They might be able to put a few small trees in large pots there after it's built, but they won't provide enough deep shade to keep the area cool. It will be hot and useless for most outdoor seating all afternoon. Umbrellas, maybe. But they will need to be adjusted to provide shade in the right places.

However, if they ﬂip their design so that patio is on the WEST side, AND they leave the trees on the lot line, they will have have shady, inviting patio for their customers who want to eat outside with no need for trees in pots or umbrellas.

Loui Tucker

6/4/25, 1:04 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Opposition to Chick-fil-A on Race and San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-04-08 19:02
To 'Abbey Ayala'
Hi Abbey,

Thank you for your e-mail, and your opposition to the project is noted.

With regard to Eduardo’s, staﬀ notes that we must review private development projects when, where, and how they are submitted, and bring the project to a hearing if the applicant desires.

For walkability, the project will be conditioned to expand the sidewalks along both Race and San Carlos to enhance walkability in the area; additionally, there will be improvements to the Race and San Carlos intersection to shorten to crossing distance to enhance pedestrian safety.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Abbey Ayala
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 10:05 PM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to Chick-ﬁl-A on Race and San Carlos

You don't often get email from why this is important
Hi Jason,

I am a member of the community in the San Carlos/Race St area. I am opposed to the building of a Chick-ﬁl-A in the proposed lot. It would negatively impact traﬃc, regardless of the lack of drive-thru. It would also result in local businesses such as Eduardo’s, being pushed out and having their location torn down.

6/4/25, 1:05 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Additionally, this does not help with enhancing the walk-ability of the area. It will encourage more cars to come use the lot, which would also make the area more dangerous to pedestrians.

Thank you for your time,

Abbey Ayala

6/4/25, 1:05 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: chick fil a at west valley location
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-04-08 19:07
To 'todd'
Hi Todd,

Thanks for your e-mail. Staﬀ notes that with regard to Eduardo’s, the City is required by State law to review private development applications when, where, and how they are proposed, and must take the project to a hearing should the applicant request it.

Additionally, staﬀ is beholden to review all projects agnostic of the applicant, taking into account only the required permit ﬁndings (land use and environmental matters) only to form a recommendation on the project. This project is a Site Development Permit, which would permit demolition of the existing building, construction of the new building, and the site plan. Obviously, Chick-ﬁl-A is the applicant and it’s clearly designed to operate as a Chick-ﬁl- A, but in theory, once the structure is built, any permitted use in the UV district would be able to move into the building without a further Planning permit.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: todd
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: chick ﬁl a at west valley location

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important https://sanjosespotlight.com/proposed-san-jose-chick-ﬁl-a-would-be-ﬁrst-in-west-valley/

hi,

6/4/25, 1:05 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. i want to voice my strong opposition to granting a christian centric company that is against lgbt and churches do not pay taxes but yet interfere with our politics. fuck them.

as a frequent patreon of eduardo in the same building that you have to demolish, it would be a waste of tax dollars to grant them this license.

their chicken tastes like shit anyways.

6/4/25, 1:05 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Outlook
RE: Chick-Fil-A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-04-09 09:03
To 'Bruce Lamensdorf'
Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your comment and your opposition is noted.

Staﬀ notes that we are beholden to review all projects agnostic of applicant, taking into account only the required permit ﬁndings (land use and environmental matters) to form a recommendation on the project. A decision-maker (the Director or his representative at Director’s Hearing or Planning Commission/City Council on appeal) will make the decision on approval of this Site Development Permit.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Bruce Lamensdorf
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:27 AM
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Chick-Fil-A

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important No one needs this new chicken chain at 1301 West San Carlos St. Their food is sub standard and they are a hate organization. VOTE NO!

6/4/25, 1:05 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/1

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Save Eduardo's Taqueria on Race Street
From
on behalf of
District 6 <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-04-30 13:36
To Lee, Jason <[email protected]>

Hi Jason,
I was not sure if you wanted to respond to this comment regarding the 1301 W. San Carlos Street project, but this email came into our inbox. I just wanted to make sure you were also aware of this email. Hope all is well, thanks!
Thank you,
Joseph Mauro
Council Policy and Legislative Aide
Office of Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San José, CA 95113
--------------- Forwarded Message ---------------
From: Eric Lynch
Sent: 4/29/2025, 3:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc:

Subject: Save Eduardo's Taqueria on Race Street

Dear Michael Mulcahy,

I’m reaching out to you regarding the 'Respect
Urban Village Plans and Ensure Responsible
Redevelopment in San Jose' petition, which has
6/4/25, 1:06 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. garnered significant community support with
2,106 signatures.

I started going to Eduardo's Taqueria in 2004
after short Fridays at Bellarmine. I continue to
take my young family there today. It is full of
wonderful memories for me, my friends, and my
family. Please keep it from becoming just another
soulless Chick fil a. If Eduardo's is pushed out of
our neighborhood for a trashy fast food
restaurant, it will be just another reason for
young professionals like myself to leave this city
for somewhere more affordable. Please keep this
classic San Jose taqueria from becoming just
another strip mall fried chicken chain.

Click here to learn more about this
petition:
https://www.change.org/p/respect-
urban-village-plans-and-ensure-responsible-
redevelopment-in-san-jose?
utm_source=supporter_emails_dm
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look
forward to your response.

San Jose Voter,
Eric Lynch

thread::Xj75Pd1JM3Szz09qLRXmEEY::

6/4/25, 1:06 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
Re: File Nos. H24-046 & ER24-195
From [email protected]
Date Tue 2025-05-20 18:44
To Lee, Jason <[email protected]>

Yes,
It can be included in the public record.

The disclaimer is generally for business purposes and confidential matters.

I apologize for the typos in my original message.

Best Regards,
Joshua Watson-Mitchell
This email and any ﬁles transmitted with it are conﬁdential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.

On May 20, 2025, at 5:07 PM, Lee, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for your comments.

Per the disclaimer in your e-mail, please clarify if this should be included within the public record for this ﬁle. Please note that all communications with public employees are generally considered public record.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
6/4/25, 1:06 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

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. [email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: ja-watson
May 20, 2025 16:53
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: File Nos. H24-046 & ER24-195

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important As a community we do not approve of this project. Please listen to the surrounding community and stop this project from displacing established businesses how contribute to our area instead of giving the funds to corporations that take the money and spend it elsewhere where. <image001.jpg>
Best Regards,

Joshua Watson-Mitchell

This email and any ﬁles transmitted with it are conﬁdential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.

6/4/25, 1:06 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Strongly opposing Project H24-046
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-05-30 18:07
To 'Brendan King'
Hi Brendan,

Thank you for your comments. I will save this for the record.

I will just note that legally, the requested permit is for the development of the site (i.e. demolition of buildings/existing site/trees and construction of building/parking lot/planting of trees), and staﬀ must review the project as submitted against the General Plan, Urban Village Plan, Zoning, etc., and must be agnostic of the applicant (i.e. Chick-ﬁl-A), taking into account only the required permit ﬁndings (land use and environmental matters).

The agenda, including information on how to participate in the hearing, will be posted no later than Wednesday at www.sanjoseca.gov/directorshearing. Please let me know if you have any questions on participating in the hearing.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Brendan King
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 18:17
To: PlanningSupportStaﬀ <PlanningSupportStaﬀ@sanjoseca.gov>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: Strongly opposing Project H24-046

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hi Jason,

6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

I hope this ﬁnds you and your team well. I wanted to write in very strong opposition to project H24-046, which I learned about when paying a visit to one my favorite local restaurants, Taquiera Eduardo.

To my understanding, Project H24-046 will develop a Chik-ﬁl-a location on Race St & San Carlos, requiring the demolishment of the 20 trees and the building currently leasing to Taquiera Eduardo, Sharper Cuts, and a third local business. Here are my core feelings on this issue:

1. Taquiera Eduardo is a cherished, thriving local business serving food to the community at about the same price point as a Chik ﬁl a. Even a 1-1 replacement is a huge loss for no community gain.

2. The development plan decreases the density and walkability of the area, bringing in many new cars and a large parking lot. San Jose isn't the most walkable generally but Race St is walkable and this is a big step in the wrong direction. Further, cutting trees reduces our shade canopy and is obviously a signiﬁcant environmental loss, for no real gain.

3. Even without a drive-thru, there are likely traﬃc concerns. Race St is fairly narrow and San Carlos is an important arterial, especially during rush hour. Chik-ﬁl-a lots and drive thrus are often full, causing traﬃc to spill out on to other roadways.

4. This development plan does not address any housing needs. We should be focused on development projects that increase total housing in the city!

5. The character of Chik-ﬁl-a and their politics opposes the character of this city.

6. There are plenty of local Chik-ﬁl-a's already (9+ in the south bay!) In short, this project would be extremely disappointing and a step backwards for the character and livability of the area, with no real gain. Please do not support this development! I will be a the June 11th hearing to voice my concerns.

Thank you,
Brendan King

6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: I Oppose Chick-fil-A Proposal on San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-05-30 18:10
To 'Nick Laskowski' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Hi Nick,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, will be posted at
www.sanjoseca.gov/directorshearing no later than Wednesday.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Nick Laskowski
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 12:19
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: I Oppose Chick-ﬁl-A Proposal on San Carlos

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important 6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, and Councilmember Mulcahy,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood. I visit this corner often and spent 11 years working less than a mile from this site. My partner commutes via the 23 bus daily.

Thank you,

Nick

6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Race Street Chik Fil A (File No. H24-046)
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-05-30 18:24
To 'Brad Rowland'
Hi Brad,

Thank you for your e-mail. This will be saved for consideration by the Hearing Oﬃcer at the June 11 Director’s Hearing. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, will be posted at
www.sanjoseca.gov/directorshearing no later than
Wednesday.

Writing just generally in response to your e-mail, the City is required by State law to process applications and review projects when, where, and how they are submitted. The owners of this site have decided to allow Chick-ﬁl- A to submit a permit here, so we must review it against our General Plan, the zoning, and other applicable documents in order to formulate a recommendation. Throughout the process, I am aware that CFA has been encouraged to locate elsewhere, but again, this is private development project and they have the right under State law to a public hearing and a decision on the project at this location.

I’ll also note that while the City has eliminated parking requirements, a restaurant of this size required 37 parking spaces at this location under the old parking code. This project is providing 60 parking spaces, which has also been a bone of contention throughout the project.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Brad Rowland
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 22:45
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; PlanningSupportStaﬀ <PlanningSupportStaﬀ@sanjoseca.gov> Subject: Race Street Chik Fil A (File No. H24-046)

6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/4

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello Mr. Lee

I am writing in regards to the proposed Chik Fil A on Race Street. (File No. H24-046, the Site Development Permit for the Chick-ﬁl-A project at 1301 W San Carlos and 249- 263 Race Street)

I am a new resident of the Shasta Hanchett neighborhood, but a long-time resident of Campbell and equally long-time oﬃce worker in Downtown San Jose. From my point of view the site makes perfect sense for Chik Fil A corporate and zero sense for the City of San Jose. I am opposed to a Chik Fil A at this location, and believe there are many better locations in San Jose

Why does this make sense for Chik Fil A?
It is close to both Downtown and Valley Fair/ Santana Row. This allows Chik Fil A to serve businesses in both locations while only having the operating costs of one location and one payroll (fewer people hired from the community). I would guess that the rent for the Race St location is also cheaper than either Downtown or Valley Fair. The relatively small size and expected high demand for delivery at the Race St location means that Chik Fil A will struggle to attract and serve walk-in or neighborhood traﬃ c. Almost all meals would be take-away. At this location, I expect that the Chik Fil A operating costs are comparatively low, but order traﬃ c and revenue remain high due to the delivery orders.

Why does this not make sense for San Jose?
My coworkers order quite a bit of Chik Fil A through food delivery services already. Sometimes it is a large order for a whole team, sometimes it is a small order for an individual.

Mostly it is uncoordinated
and there may be many deliveries per day at our building. Multiply this by the number of oﬃce buildings in downtown and the growing presence at Santana Row (and probably o ﬃces in Santa Clara, Campbell, Los Gatos, and Cupertino) and there are potentially scores of daily deliveries. Also, keep in mind that many workers are returning to the o ﬃce now, so demand may go up. A restaurant in this location will eﬀectively transfer the cost of customer service from Chik Fil A to the city of San Jose in the form of increased wear and tear on roads and infrastructure and unnecessary congestion in key locations.

I recently had lunch at the Mendocino Farms at the Pruneyard in Campbell. While I was sitting outside enjoying my freshly toasted sandwich, I watched as a carousel of delivery drivers circled the parking lot.

They weren’t even looking for parking – just trying to stay close to the restaurant and circling until their order(s) were called. This will absolutely happen at Chik Fil A, but the diﬀerence will be that drivers circle Shasta Hanchett and St Leo’s and not the Pruneyard parking lot. Race Street, with its diagonal intersections, is not a good place to be circling. And I have no idea where employees will park.

Chik Fil A is popular with my co-workers. Much more so than McDonalds or Five-Guys (other fast food restaurants in that area). We simply don’t order from those restaurants. In my case, it’s because I think a delivered burger loses a lot by the time it arrives, while a delivered chicken sandwich is still ok. Even though it is popular, I don’t think that the existence of a Chik Fil A is going to get my co-workers to get in their car and drive over. Even if that would be an additional car trip, it would at least introduce them to 6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/4

other neighborhoods in the city. Chik Fil A is simply not a destination that will create more vibrancy along San Carlos/ Stevens Creek. As for me, if I was driving that way, I would pass Chik Fil A and go to Falafel’s, Zanotto’s, or one of the many and very good taco restaurants (of which Eduardos is consistently recommended).

There are also many, better, locations for a Chik Fil A – Some options in downtown (where delivery traﬃc might shift from car to bike or foot) - The ground ﬂoor of the PWC (now VTA) building on Almaden (parking and freeway access, close to oﬃce workers, convention goers, and SJSU)
- The old Safeway (plenty of parking, very convenient to SJSU and oﬃce workers… I would personally like to see a grocery store, but the space is empty) - The Earl of Sandwich location on Santa Clara St. - Johnny Rockets or any of the spaces on El Paseo de San Antonio - One of the many untouched vacant lots owned by Google or Z&L Properties

Some options in Valley Fair/ Santa Row
- Kahns (empty, on Winchester, reasonable parking, good access) - Rosie McCann’s (empty, in Santana Row)
- The Counter and several other restaurants look like they might be fading.

A ﬁnal alternative – if they really just want to run a ghost kitchen, why not something by Costco? It’s close to the other location at SJC and has great accessibility.

And just in case you are wondering what delivery drivers think of Chik Fil A, I encourage you to check out these Reddit threads. There is no consensus, but either the experience is a miserable trial and orders are often declined by the driver, or it’s ok because the particular restaurant caters to delivery drivers (and is in a location suitable for that).

https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash_drivers/comments/uxmzjw/when_90_of_your_orders_are_chick_f il_a/

https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash_drivers/comments/146tqy0/does_anyone_else_love_dashing_on_ sundays_because/

In the end, I think there are many better locations for a Chik Fil A in San Jose. They could probably open a restaurant in both Downtown and Santana Row and they would do just as well (maybe even better) than the location at Race Street. Those other locations would also not take away from space for housing, retail, arts, or other features that San Jose desperately needs. 6/4/25, 1:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/4 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I recognize that the City does not own these locations, but the responsible thing is to facilitate getting a thriving business like Chik Fil A into a location suitable for everyone. Race street is not that location.

Thank you for your time.

Brad Rowland

I do want to note that regarding your third point, while we recognize quotation from the deﬁnition of the Mixed- Use Residential Character Area, the allowable land use is controlled by the Land Use Designation portion of the Urban Village document.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Kyle Holm
30, 2025 22:15
To: PlanningSupportStaﬀ <PlanningSupportStaﬀ@sanjoseca.gov>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: Re: W San Carlos Chick-Fil-A Proposal

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello,

As a resident near this proposed development (McKinley Ct) who frequents locations near the location, I strongly oppose the proposal for the following reasons:

1. We should not be displacing existing businesses in order to build larger parker lots. 6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmgq1gAA 1/2

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

2. New development should not be single story projects. San Jose and midtown especially need to focus on multi- story buildings.

3. The project violates the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan adopted by the city in 2018. The proposed location is in the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area which is described as "between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active ground ﬂoor retail". The Chick-Fil-A proposal is in clear violation of this.

Regards,
Kyle

6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmgq1gAA 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Trees at Chick-Fil-A lot
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-06-03 18:16
To 'Loui Tucker'
Hi Loui,

Thank you for your e-mail.

I will tell you that a certiﬁed arborist has made a determination on the trees that staﬀ is relying on, and staﬀ will present those ﬁndings to the hearing oﬃcer for approval. (These ﬁndings will also be posted with a draft permit when the agenda is posted.) For full transparency on this, I will note that if the hearing oﬃcer (or PC or CC on appeal) would like to approve the project but has qualms about the trees, staﬀ will give them an alternative ﬁnding under Section 13.32.100.A.2 of the municipal code regarding economic development. It will be, of course, the hearing oﬃcer’s decision on whether or not to approve the project in general, but also the removal of the trees from the site speciﬁcally.

If you would like to participate in the Director’s Hearing, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, will be posted at
www.sanjoseca.gov/directorshearing no later than Wednesday.

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Loui Tucker
Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2025 12:56
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Trees at Chick-Fil-A lot

Jason -
Are you going to remind me again that these trees all are unhealthy, have structural problems, and need to removed? They sure look healthy to me.

Such a shame the City is going to authorize their removal.

Loui
6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmgi8gAA 1/2

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

6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmgi8gAA 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: 1301 W San Carlos & 249-263 Race Street Chick-fil-A Project From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2025-06-03 18:16
To 'Everett Wu' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Everett,

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Everett Wu
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2025 22:40
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Roth, Chris <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: 1301 W San Carlos & 249-263 Race Street Chick-ﬁl-A Project

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello,
6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmgm3gAA 1/2

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

I am a resident of San Jose, living in the 95126 area code. I'd like to urge all of you to oppose the Site Development permit for 1301 W San Carlos and 249-263 Race Street - the planned teardown of the existing building for a larger parking lot. San Jose is already struggling with parking occupying much of its usable urban space, and this project would be another step in the wrong direction.

An economically, ﬁnancially, and ecologically sustainable future for San Jose includes better development that doesn't prioritize car infrastructure at the expense of everything else. San Jose in its current state is far from perfect, but the future city plans show that the city is eying improvements that could vastly improve liability within the city and create upward mobility opportunities for its residents. Please do your part in the stewardship of this city's future by opposing this awful development plan.

Thank you,
Everett

6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmgm3gAA 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Comment about Proposed Chick-Fil-A on W. San Carlos Street From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-06-04 12:12
To 'Tara Friesen' ; [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Hello Tara,

Thanks,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tara Friesen
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 11:14
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; planningsupportsraﬀ@sanjoseca.gov Subject: Comment about Proposed Chick-Fil-A on W. San Carlos Street

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hello Mr. Lee,

My name is Tara Friesen, and I reside at 809 Auzerais Ave. Unit 148. As a member of this neighborhood, I’d like to express to you my opinion that the proposed Chick-Fil-A project at 1301 W. San Carlos St. is not appropriate for our neighborhood and the planned development of this area.

The community surrounding this proposed site contains several small, locally owned businesses which would be harmed by a location that’s not in line with the neighborhood’s plan as a walkable urban community. This is a parking lot development targeted at bringing customers in and sending them out of our neighborhood - not a beneﬁt to our area.
6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmikYQAA 1/2

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

Furthermore, in my opinion, Chick-Fil-A does not represent the values and diverse beliefs of a community like San Jose. This is a multinational company that does not care about San Jose - they care about proﬁts. Please support local businesses - like Taqueria Eduardo, for example, located next door to this proposed site - over major corporations.

I urge you to please instead support a neighborhood focused on local development and businesses.

Thank you,

Tara Friesen

6/4/25, 1:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmikYQAA 2/2 Outlook
RE: Chick-Fil-A at Race Street
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2025-06-04 12:17
To 'Robert Gonzalez' ; Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]> Hello Robert,

I would just like to note that with regard to the identity of the applicant, ultimately, staﬀ is required to review all projects agnostic of the applicant, and can only take into account the required permit ﬁndings (land use, design, and environmental matters) to form a recommendation of the project. While the building is clearly designed to operate as a Chick-ﬁl-A, in theory, if the project is approved and the structure is built, any permitted uses in the UV zoning district (restaurant, retail, etc.) would be able to move into the building without a further Planning permit.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Robert Gonzalez
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 18:37
To: Mahan, Matt <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>
Subject: Chick-Fil-A at Race Street

6/4/25, 1:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmikdQAA 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed development of a Chick-ﬁl-A at San Carlos & Race. As a resident invested in the long-term success and character of our community, I strongly urge the city to reconsider this project, which stands in stark contrast to the goals outlined in the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

One of the key principles of the plan is fostering walkability, multimodal transportation, and pedestrian-friendly development. Even without a drive-through, Chick-fil-A’s model prioritizes car dependency, contradicting our efforts to create a vibrant, transit-oriented corridor. Given the proximity to the VTA light rail station and other mass transit options, this site presents a unique opportunity for mixed-use development that strengthens our commitment to reducing congestion and encouraging sustainable mobility.

Additionally, this project would lead to the removal of mature trees that provide essential environmental benefits such as air purification, temperature regulation, and wildlife habitat. The loss of these natural assets would degrade the neighborhood’s ecological health, exacerbating concerns over noise pollution and stormwater runoff. A thorough environmental assessment is necessary to ensure future projects align with our commitment to urban sustainability.

Beyond the environmental and transportation concerns, there is also the issue of local business displacement. Taqueria Eduardo, a cherished neighborhood gem, embodies the unique character and cultural vibrancy of our community. Replacing an independent, locally owned establishment with a national chain such as Chick-fil-A would undermine the diversity and economic resilience of our district. Moreover, Chick-fil-A’s documented history of anti-LGBTQ+ positions raises serious concerns about whether their corporate values align with the inclusive, community-driven ethos we strive to uphold.

Rather than allowing a project that disregards our neighborhood’s vision and priorities, I urge the city to advocate for developments that reinforce our commitment to walkability, sustainability, and local businesses. I strongly encourage you to deny the Site Development Permit application and seek alternatives that contribute to a thriving and cohesive urban village.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to seeing leadership that prioritizes a future in which our community is not shaped by car-centric development but by thoughtful, people-focused urban planning.

Thank you

6/4/25, 1:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADEmikdQAA 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:01
To 'Luis Castillo' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Luis,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Luis Castillo
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 11:13
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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 To the San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

6/6/25, 6:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:03
To 'Mary Helen Doherty' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Mary Helen,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Mary Helen Doherty
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:54
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

To the San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

Mary Helen Doherty

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:03
To 'Luannie Ebeo' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>
Hi Luannie,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Luannie Ebeo
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:15
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To the San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

Outlook
RE: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:02
To 'Billye Edwards' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Billye,
Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

I will note that the City is limited to reviewing the project as it has been submitted (including demolition of the existing site and construction of a new building and parking lot), and that we must be agnostic of the applicant and can only take into account the required permit findings (land use and environmental matters).

Thank you,
Jason
---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

Subject: Opposition to 1301 W San Carlos Chick-fil-A Proposal [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
To the San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, Mayor Mahan, Councilmember Davis, and Councilmember-elect Mulcahy,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-fil-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

On a personal note, I I think it’s ridiculous to replace a family businesses with corporate institutions. On top of that, this is a corporate institution that has a background of funding anti-LGBTBQ sentiment, at a time when hate against these minority populations are surging in the United States. California has attempted to stand out against other states within this country, who are supporting bigotry but by allowing this corporation to replace a family business, it feels as though city Council is subscribing to the hate. San Jose has enough Chick-fil-A, but there is only one Eduardo‘s. My understanding the city council is supposed to be for the people, voted in by the people, but not to stand by, faceless corporations, who uproot communities.

The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan describes the site of the proposed development as an area with “higher-density mixed-use and residential development drawing energy from nearby Downtown San José and the Diridon Station. Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active groundfloor retail.” A single-story, 5,139-square-foot fast-food restaurant does not align with this description. It actively works against the atmosphere an urban village is supposed to foster by encouraging customers to travel by car. This location is right along VTA’s 523/23 bus line and just a few minutes away from light rail by foot.

Please stand by the principles and plans we have created to guide our city and region into a better, more sustainable future. Please tell Chick-fil-A to majorly re-work its San Carlos St proposal or locate elsewhere.
6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/3

Best,
Billye Edwards
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 3/3 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:03
To 'G' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: G
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:10
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important To the San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:03
To 'Jeffrey Levin' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <Michael.Lomio@sanjoseca.

Hi Jeﬀrey,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Jeﬀrey Levin
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 10:18
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

6/6/25, 6:09 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2 Outlook
RE: Please: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 16:52
To 'Ed Maurer' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Ed,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

I will note that if approved, the project would be conditioned to provide wider sidewalks along both street frontages, reduce the corner radius at the street, and provide in-lieu contributions for intersection improvements and Class IV protected bike lanes along both street frontages.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Ed Maurer
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 11:51
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: Please: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To the San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, I am joining with many others to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. I volunteer regularly in downtown San Jose and patronize many businesses in midtown and downtown. Since my mode of transportation is bicycle, I am encouraged by the many steps the City has taken to make San Jose safer for pedestrians and cyclists like me. The denser housing beginning to ﬁll in the core of the city is wonderful to see, but the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

Thank you,
Ed Maurer

6/6/25, 6:07 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:01
To 'Christina Medina' Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>
Hi Christina,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Christina Medina
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 20:37
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:01
To 'Jhaid Parreno' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Jhaid,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Jhaid Parreno
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 13:00
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Sincerely,
Jhaid Parreno

6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: No New Chick-fil-A for San Carlos
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Fri 2025-06-06 17:01
To 'Kaitlan Zizzo' ; Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>;
Hi Kaitlan,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Kaitlan Zizzo
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 17:01
To: Burton, Chris <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; Tu, John <[email protected]>; Zelalich, Blage <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Subject: No New Chick-ﬁl-A for San Carlos

6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 1/2

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

Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important To the San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement,

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A at 1301 W San Carlos Street. This project is at odds with San José’s vision for West San Carlos and what I want to see in this neighborhood.

Kaitlan Zizzo
Programming and Crew Manager

6/6/25, 6:08 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/AAMkAGRhY2MwNjAyLWUwN2EtNDU0OS1iOWVhLThiZDJhYzU0NGUwZQAuAAAAAAApPoNilYGdS7O5gY8Ai8… 2/2

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
RE: Support email for Chick-fil-A
From Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2025-06-09 13:15
To 'dung tran'
Hi June,

Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: dung tran
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2025 14:00
To: Lee, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Support email for Chick-ﬁl-A

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

My name is Dung (June) Tran, and I am the owner of Crema Coﬀee Roasting and Pier 402 Restaurant, located in San Jose. I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Chick-ﬁl-A development at the Race and San Carlos intersection in San Jose. I believe this project will be a valuable addition to our community, contributing positively to the local economy and providing a convenient and popular dining option for residents and visitors alike. I am conﬁdent that Chick-ﬁl-A's presence will complement the existing businesses in the area and further enhance the vibrancy of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

6/9/25, 1:17 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADFPwXSAAA 1/2

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

Dung (June) Tran

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

6/9/25, 1:17 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADFPwXSAAA 2/2

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

6/10/25, 8:46 AM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADFPxhcwAA 2/2 June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 1 of 22
To: Sylvia Do, hearing officer for the June 11, 2025 Planning Director’s Hearing, other City of San Jose Planning staff, & District 6 Councilmember Michael Mulcahy From: Greg Ripa, nearby resident on Lincoln Ave between Park and San Carlos Re: File No. H24-046 (1301 W San Carlos)
Date: June 11, 2025

As mentioned in my public comment at the public meeting on the evening of March 27, 2025, I oppose this development project. Why? It is not dense; it is auto oriented; and it does not meet various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Staff recommends approving the site plan of February 21, 2025 and the associated site development permit, and are thus ok with a single use low density development. However, this is misguided and the permit should not be approved due to conflicts with the various plans and policies.

Rebuttal to Site Development Permit findings
(https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=122648)

Staff analysis is denoted in italics and my comments are in regular text.

Analysis: This site is located within the Urban Village land use designation in the Mixed- Use Residential Character Area, as shown on the urban village plan, and this designation supports commercial uses, as per the description. This project is a commercial use within a commercial designation and a commercial zoning district. While residential uses would be allowed on this 1.09-gross-acre site after parcel aggregation, the designation does not require residential uses, and also supports standalone commercial development on the site. There is no required commercial density in the designation; while staff recognizes Policy LU-1.1 of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, which encourages new commercial development to be built with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 or greater, this is not a requirement within the designation, and therefore, projects are not required to have an FAR over 0.3. Therefore, as this project proposes the construction of a retail building in a commercial designation and zoning district, on a site which does not June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 2 of 22
require residential uses or have a required minimum FAR, this project is consistent with the Urban Village designation within the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

As noted below is the San Jose General Plan and West San Carlos Urban Village Plan sections, this project does not meet various goals and policies of those plans. City staff fails to discuss the several policies that this project does not meet. This project is not consistent with the Urban Village designation due to its very low FAR of 0.11, which is nowhere near the maximum for Urban Village or even Neighborhood/ Community Commercial of 3.0+. This project is not pedestrian oriented and is thus out of character for an urban village (see more details later).

3. Vision Element 1: A Well-Connected Neighborhood. The West San Carlos Urban Village will be a safe, accessible, and well-connected neighborhood for all people.

Improvements to both the sidewalks and streets of the West San Carlos Urban Village are vital in order to create safer environments for all modes of transportation, especially pedestrians. Activating the sidewalk through higher intensity development and good urban design principles plays a large role in the pedestrian experience and the feeling of safety. Improvements to the sidewalk and street should also allow both residents and visitors better access to neighborhood goods and services.

Analysis: The project will provide a 20-foot attached sidewalk on West San Carlos and a 15- foot attached sidewalk on Race Street. The project also includes a property corner radius dedication at the Race and San Carlos corner, an in-lieu contribution for intersection improvements (including the bulb-out shortening the pedestrian distance across both San Carlos and Race, and in-lieu contributions along both San Carlos and Race for Class IV protected bike lanes). The project also must install red curb along project driveways to ensure adequate sight distance and make bus stop improvements as directed by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). All of these requirements create safer environments for pedestrians and other modes of transportation, increase the feeling of pedestrian safety, and connect future residents of the Bellarmino Place development to the north of the site to neighborhood goods and services across San Carlos.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 3 of 22
I applaud the City for requiring the project to create bulb-outs on the corner of West San Carlos & Race and for widening the sidewalk. However, this alone does not lead to “Activating the sidewalk through higher intensity development and good urban design principles”. Activating the sidewalk requires a pedestrian focus/ orientation. This site plan is not pedestrian focused or oriented (please see my comments below on San Jose General Plan (SJGP) CD-1.9 and CD-1.11, West San Carlos Urban Village Plan (WSCUVP) ground floor interface, and the pedestrian oriented version of the project). Further, since Chick-Fil-A’s are typically closed on Sundays, this closure would also lessen the street activation on every Sunday as compared to a different type of restaurant. Therefore, I feel that this project only partially meets the vision since it does not properly activate the sidewalk.

Ground Floor Interface, Ground Floor Articulation, Guideline 7: Discourage uninterrupted blank walls or façades. Where such blank walls are necessary, apply landscape screens, display boxes/ merchandise displays, light patterns, material variations, or other mitigation measures to enhance visual interest. Analysis: The interior design of the building requires a blank wall on West San Carlos in order to avoid exposing the kitchen to the street. Therefore, the project is conditioned to include a mural as a mitigation to enhance visual interest on West San Carlos.

Here, City staff admits that the site is less pedestrian friendly since they acknowledge the large blank wall along West San Carlos Street. The applicant could have easily flipped their building design to allow for more pedestrian friendliness and more visual interest (see the pedestrian oriented version of the project below) but chose not to so that the site could be auto-oriented. Due to this large wall (with a token mural), this project is not meeting SJGP policies CD1.1, CD1.9, and CD1.11.

Diverse and Innovative Economy Policy IE-6.2: Attract and retain a diverse mix of businesses and industries that can provide jobs for the residents of all skill and education levels to support a thriving community. Analysis: The project provides jobs for residents of all skill and education levels.

This project fails this policy. On the project site were several businesses: a Burger King, a taqueria, and a hair salon. Now, it will be one business if this permit is June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 4 of 22
approved. The hair salon has moved out and the taqueria expended but even with this, there were two businesses (the Burger King and the taqueria) with one of them being a local small business, and if this permit is approved, there would only be one business, a Chick Fil A. This is not attracting and retaining a “diverse mix of businesses and industries”. It is lessening the mix of business from 2 or 3 businesses to 1 business. This project does not meet this criteria since the existing business(es) also “provides jobs for residents of all skill and education levels.”
Fiscal Sustainability Policy FS-3.3: Promote land use policy and implementation actions that increase the ratio of Jobs to Employed Residents to improve our City’s fiscal condition, consistent with economic development and land use goals and policies.

Analysis: The project includes a revenue-generating use and increases the ratio of jobs to employed residents.

The existing and previous buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf. This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf compared to the existing and previous building sizes! Reducing the size of commercial square footage may reduce the amount of total employees on the site. Thus, this project would not “increase the ratio of Jobs to Employed Residents” based on previous and existing uses of the site. If the applicant were to not demolish the existing buildings/ businesses and instead only rebuild on the Burger King portion of the site, then the staff analysis would be true, but as of now, it is not true. This project does not meet this policy.

5. Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines
The project conforms with the following key applicable design standards. Note that any Standard which is covered or otherwise in conflict with the Urban Design Guidelines of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan cannot be applied to this project.

The project does not conform with other key applicable design rationales and standards in the document: the rationale of Section 4.1.1 discussing the need for ground floors to have “active frontages create engaging streets that are comfortable to use and visually appealing for pedestrians”, Standard S2 in that June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 5 of 22
same section 4.1.1 discussing the amount of glazing, and Standard S4 in that same section 4.1.1 discussing clear window glazing. This project does not meet any of those rationales and standards; see the Design Standards section below for more details about how the project does not meet those rationales and standards. City staff does not discuss those rationales and standards in the permit findings.
7a. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies; and Analysis: The permit allows the construction of a commercial building, which is consistent with the Urban Village land use designation, including within the Mixed-Use Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. As the project is a commercial building in a commercial designation with no required minimum commercial density requirement, it is consistent with the General Plan and the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. It furthers policies of both the General and Urban Village Plans, including policies regarding the retention of commercial lands and pedestrian improvements, as outlined in the General Plan and the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan Conformance section above.

As noted above in my rebuttal and below in the various other sections below, this project and site development permit is NOT consistent with and will not further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies. For example, it does not place its primary entrances on the street in contradiction to SJGP policy CD 1.9, the entries are not oriented toward the sidewalk in contradiction to SJGP policy CD 1.11, it reduces the amount of previous and existing commercial square footage, it is an auto-oriented/ parking- lot-oriented use in contradiction to the WSCUVP, and it does not maximize transparency between the public sidewalk and the ground floor uses in contradiction to the WSCUVP (since it has a large blank wall). This development permit and project does not further “policies of both the General and Urban Village Plans, including policies regarding the retention of commercial lands and pedestrian improvements” due to the auto-oriented site plan and the reduction in total commercial square footage compared to previous and existing site uses as discussed above and below.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 6 of 22
7e. The orientation, location and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood. Analysis: The project is for a commercial use fronting West San Carlos Street, a commercial street. The proposed new buildings and structures are compatible with the nearby residential uses to the side and rear, as they are located at the front of the site, away from the residences. The buildings are compatible with adjacent commercial development because they are of a similar height, design, and use.

As discussed in this section and in other sections, the proposed site plan is auto- oriented and not pedestrian-oriented. Thus, this project is not compatible with the urban village character of the neighborhood. The project is on San Carlos Street but I would not consider it to “front” San Carlos Street; rather, this building “fronts” its own parking lot (due to the amount of glazing and entrances on each respective side of the building). Since the building does not “front” the commercial street in an urban village, this project and site development permit is incompatible and should be rejected. Further, we should be striving for denser development in an urban village, not a development that is compatible with older “adjacent commercial development” that is “of a similar height, design, and use”, some of which is not even included in the urban village plan (any development across San Carlos Street on the south side such as Safeway). We do not need more 1 story, single use, parking oriented (not street oriented) buildings in our Urban Villages.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 7 of 22
San Jose General Plan
The San Jose General Plan does not support this development project because this project does not meet the intents and policies set forth in this document.

City staff does not discuss many of these policies in the Site Development Permit findings.

SMR Research Corporation shows that the average lifespan of a chain restaurant is nearly 30 years; thus, approving this permit could stymie the redevelopment of this parcel into a high-density urban village use for nearly three decades! “The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan is part of the first Horizon of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan to facilitate nearterm redevelopment” (WSCUVP Chapter 7). Since approving this permit may limit this site’s ability to redevelop for decades, and since this project is not a small expansion of an existing building or re-use of an existing building, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 8 of 22
FS-3.4 Promote land use policy and implementation actions that improve our City’s fiscal sustainability. Maintain or enhance the City’s projected total net revenue through amendments made to this General Plan in each Review process. Discourage proposed rezonings or other discretionary land use actions that could significantly diminish revenue to the City or significantly increase its service costs to the City without offsetting increases in revenue.

As mentioned previously, this project reduces the commercial square footage by over 1,800sf as compared to existing and previous uses. Thus, this project neither preserves nor enhances employment (commercial) land. Less commercial square footage may lead to less commercial jobs. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 9 of 22
CD-1.1 Require the highest standards of architectural and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.

CD-1.5 Encourage incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas or squares, into new and existing commercial and mixed-use developments.

Staff should ask the applicant to make the outdoor patio a privately owned public space (POPS) so that the public can legally use it at times when the restaurant is closed, such as on Sundays.

The site is not pedestrian oriented. Only one corner public entrance is located on the corner of Race Street & San Carlos Street whereas two public entrances are located facing the parking lot. There are more transparent windows facing the parking lot and less numerous, and opaque, windows facing San Carlos Street.

Landscaping is placed between the building and the sidewalk in this plan, whereas in a pedestrian oriented building, the building would front directly onto the sidewalk and have multiple entrances. There is a large wall along the pedestrian-oriented San Carlos Street and a mural is supposed to be required, but a mural does not make the sidewalk more vibrant, pedestrian oriented, or June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 10 of 22
pedestrian promoting than more transparent windows and doors. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

Proposed San Carlos Façade showing lack of pedestrian orientation

Proposed northern façade at parking lot showing auto orientation

Blank Wall
Minimal Opaque Windows Hidden Door on Corner
More Clear Windows Multiple Entrances
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 11 of 22
CD-1.11 To create a more pleasing pedestrian-oriented environment, for new building frontages, include design elements with a human scale, varied and articulated facades using a variety of materials, and entries oriented to public sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. Provide windows or entries along sidewalks and pathways; avoid blank walls that do not enhance the pedestrian experience. Encourage inviting, transparent façades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays.

Only one public corner entry opens to the sidewalk. Two additional public entries open to the parking lot. There are more windows along the parking lot side and they are all transparent. There are fewer windows on the San Carlos Street side and they have an opaque film on them. There is a large blank wall (which should be reserved for the parking lot, not the streetscape facing the public sidewalk of the commercial corridor). This façade along San Carlos is not inviting nor is it transparent to reveal what is taking place inside of the building to attract customers by revealing active uses. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

CD-1.17 Minimize the footprint and visibility of parking areas.

There are a total of about 56 to 58 parking spaces (some are unmarked so it is hard to determine an exact number) on the current project site. This project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new parking lot of 60 spaces. Thus, this project proposes to increase the amount of parking in a pedestrian oriented area. This project does not minimize the footprint of parking areas; rather, this project maximizes the footprint by increasing the number of spaces. Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

As discussed previously for policies IE-1.11 and FS-3.4, this project is creating a low-density development where we have a finite amount of high-density development potential such as this relatively large parcel. This project does not use the finite amount of land we have in this Urban Village to its fullest potential June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 12 of 22
(or even to the half-full potential). Thus, this project does not support the density intended for an Urban Village so does not efficiently use this land. Thus, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

Therefore, this project does not meet this General Plan policy.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 13 of 22
LU-10.4 Within identified growth areas, develop residential projects at densities sufficient to support neighborhood retail in walkable, main street type development.

LU-10.7 Encourage consolidation of parcels to promote mixed-use and high-density development at locations identified in the Land use / Transportation Diagram.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 14 of 22
West San Carlos Urban Village Plan
The West San Carlos Urban Village Plan does not support this development project because this project does not meet the intents, objectives, and policies set forth in this document.

The Village is envisioned as an accessible, well-connected neighborhood and vibrant business district. The Mixed-Use Residential Character Area, where this project is located, is an eastern gateway into the Urban Village.
(Chapter 3) The area is envisioned with higher-density mixed-use and residential development... Development is proposed to range between three and seven stories with residential uses above a mix of active ground floor retail.

This project is proposing a low-density, single story, single use commercial development which will not result in the construction of any residential housing units. As discussed in more detail in the Design Standards section below, the project does not make for an active ground floor experience due to the auto- oriented/ parking-lot-oriented nature of this project, the large blank walls on the primary pedestrian street of San Carlos Street, and the lack of connection between the building and San Carlos Street (due to a lack of additional entrances and landscaping in the way). Therefore, this project does not meet the intent of the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
(Chapter 3) The Urban Village designation in the Mixed-use Residential Character Area is a commercial designation which supports residential development only on parcels meeting a minimum size of 0.5 acres. Residential development along West San Carlos Street or Meridian Avenue should include pedestrian oriented, ground- floor commercial uses that front the street... Before a site meets the aforementioned development criteria, the uses allowed on parcels with a Urban Village land use designation are those uses allowed within the Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation… Neighborhood/Community Commercial Density: FAR up to 3.5 Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses typically have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the nearby community. These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 15 of 22
As mentioned previously, this is a relatively large site of about 1 acre but the proposed redevelopment is not pedestrian oriented and is not mixed use. Also, since this could be considered a site before it meets the development criteria, would it meet the use criteria of Neighborhood/ Community Commercial which promotes a form that supports walking, transit use, and public interaction? No, this project does not. It is still auto-oriented, not pedestrian oriented (see more information about the auto orientation in the Design Standards section). It is a very low FAR or 0.11, nowhere near the maximum for Urban Village or even Neighborhood/ Community Commercial of 3.0+. Further, as discussed above, the commercial use does not “front” the street but rather “fronts” the parking lot.

Therefore, this project does not meet the intent of the Urban Village designation in the Mixed-Use Residential Character Area of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
(Chapter 3) A primary objective of this Plan is to retain the existing amount of commercial space within the West San Carlos Urban Village area and increase commercial activity and employment opportunities as the area redevelops.

As mentioned in the discussion of General Plan Policy FS-3.4, the existing and previous buildings (including the now demolished Burger King) total about 7,000sf and this project proposes demolishing everything on site and starting over with a new building of less than 5,200sf. That is a reduction in commercial square footage of over 1,800sf! Thus, this project does not retain the amount of commercial space and may reduce the commercial activity and employment opportunities. Therefore, this project does not meet this primary objective of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.
(Chapter 3) Additionally, since the West San Carlos Urban Village will focus on the pedestrian, new drive through uses are not supported. New auto oriented uses are prohibited.

This project does not focus on the pedestrian due to the proposed large blank walls along San Carlos Street and the auto-oriented/ parking-lot-oriented building (more information in the Design Standards section). Further, the building “fronts” the parking lot and does not “front” the street so this development does not “focus on the pedestrian”. Thus, this project does not meet this text.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 16 of 22

Policy LU-1.1: Encourage new commercial development to be built at Floor Area Ratios of 0.3 or greater.

The project proposes to build at an FAR of 0.11, which is only about 36% of the minimum FAR of this policy. This project does not meet the minimum FAR size.

Therefore, this project does not meet this policy of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. City Staff should reject the project based on this and the other SJGP and WSCUVP policies that it does not meet and encourage the applicant to come back with a project with an FAR of at least 0.3.
(Chapter 5) Ground Floor Interface:

2. Maximize use of non-colored, non-reflective glass windows to increase transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the ground floor

As discussed above under General Plan Policys CD-1.9 and CD-1.11, the project proposes to maximize the use of opaque glass treatments, rather than transparent treatments as required by this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. If shading the interior is an issue, incorporation of awnings, screens that hang over the sidewalk, covered arcades, etc. could be used instead. In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Further, there is more glazing and active uses proposed for the secondary street (Race Street) and the parking lot. Further, in the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos Street. Therefore, this project does not meet the three elements described in this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 17 of 22

(Chapter 5) Sustainable Elements:

1. Encourage building development that integrates passive and active sustainable design elements and responds to San José’s climate.

If shading the interior is an issue, incorporation of passive design elements like awnings, screens that hang over the sidewalk, covered arcades, etc. could be used instead of vinyl film on the glazing. Due to the use of opaque vinyl glazing rather than integrated passive design elements, this project does not meet the elements described in this section of the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan.

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 18 of 22
Design Standards
The San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines do not support this development project because this project does not meet the standards set forth in this document.

Section 4.1.1. Ground floors with active frontages create engaging streets that are comfortable to use and visually appealing for pedestrians.

As discussed previously, this project does not create an active street frontage and is primarily auto oriented with more (transparent) windows and doors facing the parking lot than facing the street. For example, there are 3 sets of doors (1 public double, 1 public single, and 1 employee single) plus 3 sets of windows (2 in public areas and 1 in employee area) facing the parking lot, whereas there is only 1 set of doors (1 public) plus 3 sets of windows (1 in public area and 2 in employee area). Further, the windows along the primary street (San Carlos) are proposed to have “patterned vinyl film” on them, which I would consider an opaque or semi-opaque building element and may obscure viewing in or out of those windows, whereas the parking lot side is proposed to have transparent (clear) glass without any film. This imbalance, particularly with the number and transparency of the doors and windows, makes the building feel more auto oriented/ parking-lot-oriented than pedestrian oriented. Similarly, it could then be said that the building does not “front” the street but rather “fronts” the parking lot. Therefore, this project does not create an engaging street that is visually appealing so the project does not meet this rationale of creating an active street frontage.

In the plans, the total building frontage length along the primary street (San Carlos Street) is 81’-8.25” and the total glazing is less than 27’, which is about 33% of the active frontage length. Therefore, this building plan does not meet this design standard of 70% clear glazing along the active frontage of the primary street (San Carlos Street).

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 19 of 22
S4. Windows and clear glazing on the ground floor façade must have no opaque or semi-opaque building elements wider than two inches or spaced more closely than five feet between 3 to 10 vertical feet from the sidewalk.

Section 4.1.3. Blank walls make places feel uninviting and sometimes unsafe. Minimizing long stretches of unbroken façades and non-active frontages, such as parking garages and service and utility areas, creates an active and safe public realm. Standards S1. Limit continuous blank walls on the ground floor to less than 30 feet along primary street façades and 50 feet along secondary street façades (see Fig. 4.13).

In the plans, there is a 37’-11.75” blank wall along the primary street, San Carlos, so this plan does not meet this design standard. A mural does not make up for not meeting this design standard of limiting continuous blank walls to less than 30’ along the primary street (San Carlos Street).

This permit should be rejected for failing to meet all of these design rationales and standards discussed above. Failure to meet this design standards leads to a reduction in high-quality pedestrian facilities that promote pedestrian activity (SJGP CD-1.9), a reduction of commercial building frontages at or near the street-facing property line with entrances directly to the public sidewalk (SJGP CD-1.9), a reduction in inviting and transparent façades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays (SJGP CD-1.11), a reduction in pedestrian oriented ground-floor commercial uses that front the street (WSCUVP Ch.3), and a reduction in transparency between indoor and outdoor activity along the ground floor (WSCUVP Ch.5).

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 20 of 22
Pedestrian Oriented Version the Project
As discussed previously, the current (February 21, 2025) site plan does not meet the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Thus, the project should be redesigned, ideally with more density, less parking, and retention of the existing business(es). Below is an example diagram showing how the current low-density project could be more pedestrian oriented, rather than its current auto-oriented design.

First, the building would need to be flipped so that there are more doors and windows along the San Carlos Street side. This would also have a complementary effect of reducing the length of the blank walls.

Added 2 public entrances to San Carlos
Added more visual interest to
streetscape with dining room, queue,
and ordering areas within view
Reduced blank wall
size on San Carlos Street
Less entrances and
windows on parking lot
side = less auto oriented
June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 21 of 22
Second, all doors and glazing along San Carlos Street would need to be transparent and not have any “patterned vinyl film”. Ideally, the size and number of windows along San Carlos Street would also be increased from even what is shown in the diagram above so that 70% of that frontage is transparent door and window glazing.

Third, all landscaping between the building and the sidewalk would be removed so that all 3 to 4 (or more) building entrances facing the sidewalk are easily accessible and pedestrian oriented.

Fourth, any large blank walls (with or without murals) should face the parking lot, and not the street.

Fifth, the existing businesses/ buildings should be retained and the amount of parking should be minimized.

This shows how much the current site plan does not meet the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines due to the current plan’s auto-orientation rather than pedestrian orientation as could be done instead (by showing an example above).

June 11, 2025 File H24-046 Pg. 22 of 22
Recommendation to Staff
I continually advocated for greater densities and higher building heights in the Urban Village planning process. Thus, I support projects that adhere to the Urban Village Plan, are pedestrian oriented, are mixed use, and are high density. This particular project is none of those things.

We do not need more 1 story, single use, parking oriented (not street oriented) buildings in our Urban Villages. Let’s learn from our low-density mistakes of the past and apply the SJGP, WSCUVP, and the Citywide Design Guidelines discussed above; this will result in denying the permit and project.

That said, City staff must evaluate the project as proposed. As discussed previously, this proposed project as-is does not meet the various intents, goals, policies, and standards set forth in the San Jose General Plan, the West San Carlos Urban Village Plan, and the San Jose Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines as described above; therefore, staff should “apply strong design controls to the site plan” (SJGP CD1.1) and reject this plan as currently proposed.

Thank you for your consideration!

Greg Ripa

GregRipa

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Thank you for your e-mail, and it is saved for the record for the Director’s Hearing on June 11. If you would like to participate, the agenda for the June 11 Director’s Hearing, including information on how to participate in the hearing, has been posted at https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/122650.

Thank you,
Jason

---
Jason Lee, Planner II
[email protected] | 408.535.3887

City of San José
Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3F Tower
San José, California 95113-1905
www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From:

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 18:55
To: Fong, David D (PBCE) <[email protected]>; Lee, Jason <[email protected]>; The Oﬃce of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Lomio, Michael <[email protected]>; Rocha, Vincent <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; District2 <[email protected]>; District3 <[email protected]>; District4 <[email protected]>; District5 <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District7 <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; District9 <[email protected]>; District 10 <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Subject: Re: Chick-Fil-A 1301 San Carlos

Chick-fil-A is one of the most community/planning be damned companies around. They have new one coming in an Urban Village a mile and a half away on Stevens Creek that they apparently convinced the developer to settle for a one-story store facing away from the street blocked by parking lots on the street front. Stevens Creek as a planned vibrant, walkable corridor notwithstanding. The 1301 San Carlos store is more of
the same.

Catalyze SV will preset a cogent set of horrors committed by this proposal which should be flatly denied.

Carlin Black, Urban Planner, (Retired)
District 1, San Jose

6/10/25, 8:57 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADFPyIFAAA 2/3

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

6/10/25, 8:57 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADFPyIFAAA 3/3

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

To our understanding, it complies with the zoning and legal requirements outlined in the city code. Denying their permit would send a chilling message to businesses investing in our community and would further support the reputation that San Jose is diﬃcult to do business with.

Sincerely,
Silicon Valley Business Alliance
Www.svba.biz
Johnny Khamis

6/10/25, 6:50 PM Mail - Lee, Jason - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ADSE7OtpFQkSbE7w1K0p8uAADFPx52AAA 2/2

San Jose City CouncilSeptember 16, 2025

San Jose City Council
September 16, 2025