The San José City Council or Planning Commission may
hear appeals to the issuance of a development permit,
variance, or exception. Not all permit processes
allow for an appeal. Please refer to Table 20-260 of
Municipal Code 20.100.220 for a complete list of the
t
ypes of permit that may be appealed and the related
hearing body.
The decision made by the hearing body is final and shall be effective immediately.
This application form must be completed as instructed
below to facilitate the appeal.
WHO MAY APPEAL
The applicant, or any property owner or tenant of a
property within 1,000 feet of the subject site, may file the appeal. The appellant must sign this application or if signed by the appellant’s lawful power of attorney,
you must submit written evidence to that person’s
authority.
Exception for Tree Removal Permits - For a Tree
Removal Permit, only property owners or occupants of
the subject site or of properties immediately adjacent
or across the street from the subject site may appeal.
Exception for Tentative Maps - Any person may file.
DEADLINE
File this completed application on or no later than 10
calendar days after a copy of the permit decision by
the Planning Commission or Director of Planning has
been mailed to the project applicant. Permit decisions
are typically made on Wednesdays with the issued
permit mailed two days later on a Friday. Therefore,
the 10-day deadline is commonly the second Monday
following the hearing (by 5:00 p.m.).
Exception for Tentative Maps - The appeal must be
filed within 10 calendar days of the permit approval.
FEES & PROCESS
The application filing fee must be paid by the deadline as previously explained. Find the current fee for a
Permit Appeal on the Table of Applications at www.
s
anjoseca.gov/PlanningApplications. For Tree Removal
P
ermits, a Public Noticing fee will also be charged.
,KtdK^hD/dͳϮKWd/KE^
In-Person (no appointment required): Before the
filing deadline stated above, come to the Planning
Offices, third floor of City Hall (200 E. Santa Clara
Street, San José) to submit the application. You may
pay the appeal fee in-person or staff may email you
an invoice which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.
Email: Before the filing deadline stated above, email the completed application and any attachments to
[email protected]. If the appeal is timely
and complet
e, staff will send you an invoice for the
appeal fee, which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.
WHAT TO SUBMIT
This application form, completed and signed.
Assessor’s parcel map showing the subject site
outlined.
City staff will set a public hearing date with the Planning Commission or City Council as appropriate. The appeal
item will be placed on the agenda. Staff will also
prepare a recommendation of action to the Planning
Commission or City Council.
FOR QUESTIONS
Speak with a City Planner at 408-535-3555; see phone
service hours at www.sanjoseca.gov/Planning.
Para información en español, comuníquese con un
P
lanificador de la ciudad al 408-793-4100.
ҳĜӇӄĐŚҽƚƌӄ͕ŶſŝĐŚƵLJҵŶǀӀŝEŐӇӁŝůҨƉŬұ
ŚŽҢĐŚƚŚăŶŚƉŚҺƚҢŝ408-793-4174.
PLANNING DIVISION 05/20/2024 SUBJECT TO CHANGE
APPEAL OF PERMIT APPLICATION
W>EE/E' /s/^/KE ϰ Ϭ ϴ ͳ ϱ ϯ ϱ ͳ ϯ ϱ ϱ ϱ ^E :K^ /dz ,>>͕ Ϯ ϬϬ
͘ ^Ed >Z ^d ͘ ͕ ^E :K^
͕ ϵ ϱ ϭ ϭ ϯ ttt ͘^E:K^
͘ 'Ks ͬ W>EE/E'
continued >
APPEAL OF PERMIT APPLICA TION P AGE 2 OF 2 W>EE/E' /s/^/KE ϰ Ϭ ϴ ͳ ϱ ϯ ϱ ͳ ϯ ϱ ϱ ϱ ^E :K^ /dz ,>>͕ Ϯ ϬϬ
͘ ^Ed >Z ^d ͘ ͕ ^E :K^
͕ ϵ ϱ ϭ ϭ ϯ ttt ͘^E:K^
͘ 'Ks ͬ W>EE/E'
Please download and save this computer-fillable form to your computer. Follow instructions for Digital Forms.
1. The undersigned respectfully requests an appeal to the permit issued for the property located at:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER NAME:
PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS:
Ϯ͘Z
^KEͬ^&KZWW
>͗ If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet.
3. PERSON FILING APPEAL
RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT SITE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: Property Owner Adjacent Property Owner Tenant on Site Property Owner/Tenant Within 1,000 feet Tentative Map Appeal (anyone may appeal) PRINT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
EMAIL: PHONE:
භSIGNATURE OF PERSON FILING THE APPEAL DATE: [MM/DD/YYYY ] For electronic submittal or virtual appointments, a Digital ID Signature is required.
For in-person appointments, an original ink signature is required.
4. CONTACT PERSON IF DIFFERENT FROM PERSON FILING APPEAL PRINT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
EMAIL: PHONE:
K&&/
h^
KE>z
FILE NUMBER:
INTAKE DATE: BY: PAID: $
COMMENTS:
Please see Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700, San Jose, California 95113 [email protected] 510.384.7627
The
Zotta Family Trust by & through its counsel of record Joshua Safran, Esq., Attorney at Law 6/30/25
Digitally signed by Joshua Safran, Esq.
Date: 2025.06.30 13:14:30 -07'00'
The Zotta Family Trust
1155 Yosemite Avenue, San José, CA 95126
1301 West San Carlos Street & 255-263 Race Street
1 Attachment 1
for
Appeal of Condition 6 of Site Development Permit (“Permit”) for File Nos. H24-046, AT24-013, & ER24-195
Northwest corner of Race Street and West San Carlos Street (“Property”)1 (1301 West San Carlos Street & 255-263 Race Street; APNs: 261-42-059, -060, and -064) The owner of the Property, The Zotta Family Trust (“Owner”), hereby administratively appeals the Permit based on the invalidity, impropriety, and unlawfulness of the imposition of Condition 6 on the Permit. For the reasons set forth below, th e Owner requests that Condition 6 be vacated and rescinded in its entirety and that the remainder of the Permit be affirmed, allowing the subject project to proceed.
I. Background
The Property is currently occupied by a rundown commercial building (the “Existing Building”) of approximately 3,817 square feet which is some 70 years old. The Existing Building is currently occupied by tenants – a restaurant and a hair salon. The restaurant’s lease expired in 2024 and the tenancy is now month-to-month. The restaurant is paying $2.27 per square foot, which is approximately ½ of market rate. The restaurant tenant is entitl ed to 6-month advance notice of termination of the month-to-month arrangement and will receive reimbursement for the last 3 months of rent upon termination. The Owner’s long-term needs and plans for the Property, including her need to demolish the Existing Bu ilding and redevelop the Property, have been repeatedly communicated to the existing tenants in writing for at least eight years.
The restaurant covers no overhead expenses such as property taxes, insurance, or maintenance and repair. All of these costs are borne solely by the Owner. This has required a significant investment of time and resources by the Owner to operate and maintain the Property for the restaurant’s benefit. The Owner is a trust managed solely by Mrs. Zotta, an octogenarian who no longer has the desire or ability to continue to expend her time, energy, and resources to continue to maintain and operate the Existing Building.
The Existing Building is physically obsolete. It has lost its value due to wear and tear and physical deterioration over time. The basic repairs and im provements required to cu re these issues would be far too expensive relative to the building’s value and the resources available to the Owner. The Existing Building is also functionally obsolete. It’s outdated features and design have reduced the structure’s utility and market appeal. It has a poor floor plan layout, lacks modern amenities and, again, is too expensive to meaningfully update given the building’s existing value and the resources available to the Owner.
Hence, with or without issuance of the Permit, or indeed any permit for any project on the Property, the Existing Building necessarily will be permanen tly vacated. There is no scenario available to the Owner where the Existing Building can continue to be a rental property. Put simply, the
1 The Assessor’s parcel map showing the Property outlined is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 2 continued presence of the Existing Buildin g on the Property would render any future redevelopment plans infeasible and untenable.
On July 11, 2024, 4G Development (“Applicant”), with the Owner’s approval, applied to the City of San Jose for a Site Developmen t Permit to allow for the redevelopment of the entire Property with a brand-new quick service restaurant of approximately 5,139 square feet, an outdoor patio, and associated improvements (the “Project”). The redevelopment of the Property contemplated by the Project necessarily entailed the demolition of the Existing Building to make way for a new building and associated amenities, along with required parking, and circulation.
On June 11, 2025, the Project came for a hearing before Hearing Officer Sylvia Do, Division Manager on behalf of Christopher Burton, Dir ector, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (“Hearing Officer”). Based on the detailed evidence, analysis, and studies presented by City staff, set forth in the staff report dated June 2, 2025, submitted by Tina Garg on behalf of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, in cluding the substantial reports, analyses, and assessments attached (“Staff Report”), the Hearing Officer determined, and the Staff Report and Permit reflect that:
A. The Project, as proposed, was consistent and conformed with the General Plan and West San Carlos Urban Village Plan. Neither plan has any required minimum commercial density for the Property. Staff specifically evaluated the Project against the various elements of these plans and found that it was consistent with the intent of each element.
B. The Project, as proposed, conformed in all resp ects with the provisions of Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code, including the development standards of the UV Urban Village Zoning District. The applicable zoning requires no minimum density or FAR.
C. The Project, as proposed, conf ormed to the key applicable design standards and other applicable City policies, including the specific findings set forth in Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code governing issuance of Site Development Permits.
D. The Project, as proposed, met all of the criteria for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (“CatEx”) from the Californi a Environmental Qu ality Act (“CEQA”), for Infill Development projects. Specifically, the Heari ng Officer found that the Project would be consistent with all criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and would not trigger any of the disqualifying exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
Then, to the great surprise and confusion of the Applicant and Owner, the Hearing Officer suddenly announced the approval of the Permit for the Proj ect subject to the “condition” that the Existing Building not be demolished and that the Projec t be redesigned to accomm odate and incorporate the Existing Building (now set forth in the Pe rmit as Condition 6). The Permit identifies that Condition 6 would require reconsid eration of the number and loca tion of the Project’s proposed driveways, parking spaces, tr ees, and lighting fixtures. The condition also unde rmines safe circulation for delivery trucks and emergency vehicles. Although it is unclear exactly what evidence in the r ecord or findings were relied upon by the Hearing Of ficer to impose this
Condition, it appears that the H earing Officer stated that the Project proponents “failed” to 3 demonstrate that they had met the criteria for issuance of a Demolition Permit under Section
20.80.460 of the Municipal Code.
On June 1, 2025, the Owner duly and timely filed an Appeal of Enviro nmental Determination Application, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. This appeal is designed to augment and supplement the bases for appeal already set forth in the Owner’s Appeal of Environmental Determination.
II. Bases for Appeal of Condition 6
The Owner appeals the imposition of Condition 6 in reliance upon on the following bases:
A. Condition 6 Is a Poison Pill that Sabotages the Project by Making it Legally and Practically Infeasible
The Project, as presented by the Applicant and as processed and reviewed by Staff in the Staff Report, necessarily involved the removal of the approximately 70-year-old Existing Building to facilitate the development of a new building in its stead. This Project was found to be consistent with the applicable planning, zoning, code, and environmental standards.
The sudden and unnoticed imposition of Condition 6, requiring that the Existing Building be retained onsite in addition to the new building , expressly requires a fund amental redesign of the entire Project and renders it both practically and legally infeasible. The new building is physically and economically impossible to construct with another building onsite.
Further, Condition 6 appears to be an inappropriate attempt to interfere with the Owner’s month- to-month lease of the Existing Building, by compelling the Owner to extend a highly unfavorable, very short-term lease into a long-term grant of rights to a tenant.
As detailed in the Permit itself, Condition 6 compels an impermissible: decrease in the number of vehicle parking spaces; and, esta blishment of two driveways on th e Race Street frontage, where Section 2.2.2, Standard S2 of the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines only allow one, making it infeasible for the Project to now comply with this sta ndard. Jennifer Kirby, P.E. of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has diligen tly evaluated Condition 6 and has provided a Technical Analysis of Imposition of Site Development Permit Condition 6, and concluded that, in addition to these deviations from the City’s standards, the condition will: restrict ingress and egress and render truck maneuverability throughout the site to be constrained and impractical; invalidates the existing traffic study; a nd reduces the pervious area such that aboveground stormwater treatment will no longer be feasible. A true and correct copy of this memorandum is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
Further, the Existing Building is built of unreinforced wood and masonry of 1950s-era construction; forcing its retention may endanger public safety rather than advance it, conflicting with SJMC Ch. 17.10 (seismic safety) and undermining the Permit’s own finding that the Project will “upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.”
While it is accurate the at the Project will increase the number of jobs for residents of all skill and education levels, the Permit’s numerous references to “retaining” jobs at the Existing Building are 4 false. As explained in detail above, with or without issuance of this permit or any other, the Existing Building will not and cannot be ma intained as a leasehold and will not have any tenants of any kind going forward. If Condition 6 is rescinded, the Existing Build ing will be replaced by the Project. If Condition 6 is forced upon the Owner, the Existing Building will simply become vacant.
Further, Condition 6 injects impermissible levels of vagueness and uncertainty into the Project.
For example, Condition 6 leaves essential terms—acceptable circulation pl ans, tree replacements that will “supersede” prior conditions, and the sc ope of the future ame ndment—to later staff discretion, violating basi c due-process principles. See Shapell Indus. v. Governing Bd . (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218.
B. Condition 6 Is Not Linked to a Legitimate Public Purpose In California, a city’s ability to lawfully impose conditions on development projects is limited by the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements, established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard . These cases, along with Ca lifornia Government Code Section 66000 et seq., ensure that conditions impos ed on development are directly related to the project’s impacts and are roughly equivalent to those impacts.
The “nexus” requirement establishes that there must be a clear connec tion (nexus) between the condition imposed and the specific impact of the de velopment project. For example, a condition requiring a developer to dedicate land for a park must be linked to the increased need for recreational space created by the project. The “pr oportionality” requirement establishes that the impact of the condition on the developer must be roughly pr oportional to the impact of the development on the community. This means th e condition cannot be excessive or overly burdensome in relation to the project’s effects.
Under CEQA, mitigation measures may only be implemented to reduc e or avoid significant environmental impacts. Here, there is no demonstrated basis for imposition of Condition 6 on the Permit. The Hearing Officer did not make any findings that the Project would have any unmitigated impacts. Indeed, Condition 6 was not imposed in relation to any “impact” at all. Absent a legitimate and lawful public purpose connected to impacts of the Project, Condition 6 must be removed.
C. Condition 6 Is Unsupported by Proper Findings
The Permit nowhere finds that removing the Existing Building would cause any adverse effect; nor does it supply substantial evidence to justify its mandatory retention. The absence of analytical linkage violates the fundamental requirement for findings in California as set forth in Topanga Ass’n v. Cnty. of L.A. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 (findings must br idge the analytic gap between raw evidence and ultimate decision). SJMC § 20.100.630 requires that conditions be supported by facts shown by evidence in the record. The record contains no evidence that demolition of the Existing Building would cause any materi al adverse impacts; indeed, the CEQA exemption analysis assumes its removal. Absent substantial evidence, Condition 6 is arbitrary and capricious. See Code Civ
. Proc. § 1094.5; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357.
5 D. Condition 6 Improperly Renders the Permit Approval Legally Illusory The Hearing Officer approved the Permit. One of the conditions of that Permit approval is Condition 6. On its face, Condition 6 requires that the Applicant seek a “Site Development Permit Amendment” of the very Permit to which it is a condition of approval. It states: “A Site Development Permit Amendment shall be required for retaining the [Existing Building].” Such a condition defeats the very approval it purports to condition. Based on our review of California case law and planning documents, we can find no other instance in California history where an approval contains a condition invalidating that very approval absent an amendment and requiring that it be amended to be valid. This is an internal inconsistency that conjures up an image of a snake eating its own tail.
By compelling a major redesign and new discretionary review by way of an amendment, Condition 6 inappropriately nullifies the rights that ordinar ily attach to a permit once effective. The Permit, in essence, provides the Applicant no rights other than to apply for a Permit amendment. This approach to permit issued is not contemplated by the San Jose Municipal Code and finds no support in California case law.
E. Condition 6 Impermissibly Creates a New Project not Covered by the CatEx Under the CEQA Guidelines, the term “project” applies to the “whole of an action” that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15378(a). Under CEQA and the Guidelines, California’s environmental review laws apply to activities that may cause “either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Public Resources Code §21065; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15378(a).
The broad reach of the term “project” means that, when examining an activity to determine whether it could affect the physical environment, an agency must consider the entire activity that is the subject of its approval. See, e.g., Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283 (emphasis added).
Here, the Hearing Officer did not and, indeed, could not, have evaluated the entire activity subject to her ultimate approval including Condition 6 b ecause the Project before her simply did not contemplate the improvement and operation of the Property with two commercial buildings.
The Project necessarily involved the replacement of the Existing Building with a new building, reconsidered parking, and a different circulation pattern. The extensive and detailed Staff Report, which evaluated everything from traffic to public utilities to air and water quality, etc., upon which the Hearing Officer relied necessarily only evaluated the replacement of the Existing Building with a new building. The Project pres ented to the Hearing Officer did not include two commercial buildings on the Property. The Staff Report did not contemplate or study two commercial buildings on the Property. Yet, Condition 6 requires the Owner to develop the Property with two commercial buildings, which could entail a dou bling of impacts, and/or a set of impacts that were neither contemplated nor analyzed.
For this reason, Condition 6 is a poi son pill that sabotages the Project contemplated by the Staff Report and invalidates the CatEx.
6 To avoid this precise problem, CEQA expressly re quires that project descriptions submitted by applicants give an accurate, complete, and stable description of the entirety of the project proposed such that the environmental analysis may adequately evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the activity being approved. See, e.g., McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1144. Here, the project description for the Project was unilaterally amended at the hearing without notice by the Hearing Officer over the objecti ons of the Owner and Applicant after the environmental review was already completed for the Project proposed. This is simply not how CEQA works.
F. Imposition of Condition 6 Frustrates Fundamental Due Process & Is Inconsistent with the City’s Own Code
At the subject hearing, the Hearing Officer specifically found on the record that the Project met all of the criteria for issuance of S ite Development Permit and found th at it was consistent with the applicable planning designations and zoning requirements. This s hould have entitled the Owner and Applicant to issuance of the Permit, subject to reasonable conditions of approval. Instead, the Hearing Officer went on to make findings that the Project proponents “failed” to demonstrate that they had met the criteria for issuance of a Demolition Permit under Section 20.80.460 of the Municipal Code and, apparently for this reas on, imposed Condition 6 requi ring that the Existing Building remain in addition to the new building.
The fundamental problem with this basis fo r functionally denying th e Project by imposing a condition that renders it infeasib le is that the findings specifie d on the record fo r approval of a Demolition Permit are not the findings necessarily required of an applicant for approval of a Site Development Permit. The Staff Report itself and dr aft Permit required that the Owner separately and independently apply, in the future, for such a permit. Indeed, the original Condition 6 of the draft Permit expressly stated: “A demolition permit may be issued for the existing structures only upon the submittal of a complete Pu blic Works Grading Permit application or the submittal of a complete Building Permit application for new construction.” Hence, under the terms of the draft Permit and the Code itself, by requiring that the Owner meet the burden required for a Demolition Permit before it even seeks one, the Hearing Officer has inappropria tely put the proverbial cart squarely before the horse.
This changing of the rules of the game at the last minute, ignoring the published and noticed mandates of the Code, penalizing the Applicant and Owner for not presenting evidence they had no obligation to provide, and devi ating from the Project contemplat ed in the Project application and evaluated in the Staff Repor t, all amounts to a fundamenta l violation of the Owner’s due process rights.
Due process requires reasonable notice and a reasonable opportun ity to be heard before a government decision affecting a protected interest is made. Changing the rules or criteria for evaluation during the hearing, without prior no tice to the owner, deprives them of the ability to adequately prepare their case, gather necessary evidence, and present a meaningful defense based on the previously known rules. See, e.g., Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605. 7 Under CEQA (see e.g. Public Resources Code §21004 and 14 Cal. Code Regs. §14040), mitigation measures that are beyond the powers conferred by law on lead agencies are legally infeasible.
Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 276, 291.
III. Conclusion
For all of the reasons set forth, above, the Ow ner requests that Condition 6 be vacated and rescinded in its entirety and that the remainder of the Permit be affirmed, allowing the Project to proceed.
Per Municipal Code 21.07.040, the San José City
Counc
il will hear appeals to the environmental
determination made by City staff at a project’s public
hearing. This application form must be completed as
instructed below to facilitate the appeal.
WHO MAY APPEAL
Any person may file.
DEADLINE
File this completed application by no later than 5:00 p.m. of the third business day following the day of the
public hearing that relied upon the Environmental
Determination.
FEES & PROCESS
View the current fee for an Environmental Determination Appeal on the Table of Applications at www.sanjoseca.
go
v/PlanningApplications. The fees vary depending on
whether you are a pro
ject applicant or non-applicant.
,KtdK^hD/dͳϮKWd/KE^
In-Person (no appointment required): Before the
filing deadline stated above, come to the Planning
Offices, third floor of City Hall (200 E. Santa Clara
Street, San José) to submit the application. You may
pay the appeal fee in-person or staff may email you
an invoice which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.
Email: Before the filing deadline stated above, email the completed application and any attachments to
[email protected]. If the appeal is timely
and co
mplete, staff will email you an invoice for the
appeal fee, which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.
WHAT TO SUBMIT
This application form, completed and signed. You
must state with specificity the reasons that the
Environmental Determination should be found not
to be complete or not to have been prepared in
compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
Only appeals that are based on issues that were raised
at the public hearing or in writing prior to the public hearing will be considered.
City staff will set a public hearing date before the City Council; the appeal item will be placed on the agenda.
Staff will also prepare a recommendation of action to
the City Council.
FOR QUESTIONS
Speak with a City Planner at 408-535-3555; see phone
service hours at www.sanjoseca.gov/Planning.
Para información en español, comuníquese con un
Pl
anificador de la ciudad al 408-793-4100.
ҳĜӇӄĐŚҽƚƌӄ͕ŶſŝĐŚƵLJҵŶǀӀŝEŐӇӁŝůҨƉŬұŚŽҢĐŚ
ƚŚăŶŚƉŚҺƚҢŝϰϬϴͲϳϵϯͲϰϭϳϰ͘
PLANNING DIVISION 05/20/2024 SUBJECT TO CHANGE
APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION APPLICATION
W>EE/E' /s/^/KE ϰ Ϭ ϴ ͳ ϱ ϯ ϱ ͳ ϯ ϱ ϱ ϱ ^E :K^ /dz ,>>͕ Ϯ ϬϬ
͘ ^Ed >Z ^d ͘ ͕ ^E :K^
͕ ϵ ϱ ϭ ϭ ϯ ttt ͘^E:K^
͘ 'Ks ͬ W>EE/E'
continued >
APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION APPLICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 W>EE/E' /s/^/KE ϰ Ϭ ϴ ͳ ϱ ϯ ϱ ͳ ϯ ϱ ϱ ϱ ^E :K^ /dz ,>>͕ Ϯ ϬϬ
͘ ^Ed >Z ^d ͘ ͕ ^E :K^
͕ ϵ ϱ ϭ ϭ ϯ ttt ͘^E:K^
͘ 'Ks ͬ W>EE/E'
Please download and save this computer-fillable form to your computer. Follow instructions for Digital Forms.
The undersigned respectfully requests an appeal for the following environmental determination. ϭ͘Z
^KEͬ^&KZWW
>͗ If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet.
Ϯ͘W
Z^KE&/>/E'WW
>
WZ/EdED
͗
D/>/E'Z
^^͗
D/>͗W,KE ͗
භ^/'EdhZ
K&W
Z^KE&/>/E'd,
WW
>d ͗DDͬͬzzz z
For electronic submittal or virtual appointments, a ŝŐŝƚĂů/^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ is required.
For in-person appointments, an original ink signature is required. ϯ͘KEddW
Z^KE/&/&&
Z
Ed&ZKDW
Z^KE&/>/E'WW
>
WZ/EdED
͗
D/>/E'Z
^^͗
D/>͗W,KE ͗
Please see Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein.
One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700, San Jose, California 95113 [email protected] 510.384.7627
The Zotta Family Trust by & through Joshua Safran, Esq. 06/16/2025Joshua Safran, Esq.
Digitally signed by Joshua Safran, Esq.
Date: 2025.06.16 15:48:10 -07'00'
Attachment 1
for
Appeal of Environmental Determination Application for
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
Class 32 Categorical Exemption (“CatEx”) for
Site Development Permit (“Permit”) for File Nos. H24-046, AT24-013, & ER24-195 Northwest corner of Race Street and West San Carlos Street (“Property”) (1301 West San Carlos Street & 255-263 Race Street; APNs: 261-42-059, -060, and -064)
I. Background
The Property is currently occupied by a rundown commercial building (the “Existing Building”) of approximately 3,817 square feet. The Existing Building is currently occupied by tenants – a restaurant and a hair salon – both on very short term month-to-month leases that require a significant investment of time and resources by the owner of the Property, The Zotta Family Trust (“Owner”), to operate and maintain. The Owner has no desire to continue to maintain and operate the Existing Building, and its continued presence onsite would make future redevelopment plans infeasible and untenable.
On July 11, 2024, 4G Development (“Applicant”), with the Owner’s approval, applied to the City of San Jose for a Site Development Permit to allow for the redevelopment of the entire Property with a brand new quick service restaurant of approximately 5,139 square feet, an outdoor patio, and associated improvements (the “Project”). The redevelopment of the Property contemplated by the Project necessarily entailed the demolition of the Existing Building to make way for the new, larger building and associated amenities.
On June 11, 2025, the Project came for a hearing before Hearing Officer Sylvia Do, Division Manager on behalf of Christopher Burton, Director, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (“Hearing Officer”). Based on the detailed evidence, analysis, and studies presented by City staff, set forth in the staff report dated June 2, 2025, submitted by Tina Garg on behalf of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, including the substantial reports, analyses, and assessments attached (“Staff Report”), the Hearing Officer determined that the Project met all the criteria for the CatEx from CEQA, for Infill Development projects.
Specifically, the Hearing Officer found that the Project would be consistent with all criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and would not trigger any of the disqualifying exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.
To the great surprise and confusion of the Applicant and Owner, the Hearing Officer then announced the approval of the Permit for the Project subject to the “condition” that the Existing Building not be demolished and that the Project be redesigned to accommodate and incorporate the Existing Building (the “Condition”). Although it is unclear exactly what evidence in the record or findings were relied upon by the Hearing Officer to impose this Condition, it appears that the Hearing Officer stated that the Project proponents “failed” to demonstrate that they had met the criteria for issuance of a Demolition Permit under Section 20.80.460 of the Municipal Code.
II. Bases for Appeal of Environmental Determination
The Owner hereby appeals imposition of the Condition because it invalidates the CatEx and causes the Hearing Officer-revised Project to violate CEQA (and other laws including the City’s own Code) for the following reasons:
A. The Condition Impermissibly Creates a New Project not Covered by the CatEx
Under the CEQA Guidelines, the term “project” applies to the “whole of an action” that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect impact. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15378(a). Under CEQA and the Guidelines, California’s environmental review laws apply to activities that may cause “either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Public Resources Code §21065; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15378(a).
The broad reach of the term “project” means that, when examining an activity to determine whether it could affect the physical environment, an agency must consider the entire activity that is the subject of its approval. See, e.g., Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283 (emphasis added).
Here, the Hearing Officer did not and, indeed, could not, have evaluated the entire activity subject to her ultimate approval including the Condition because the Project before her simply did not contemplate the improvement and operation of the Property with two commercial buildings.
The Project necessarily involved the replacement of the Existing Building with a new building.
The extensive and detailed Staff Report, which evaluated everything from traffic to public utilities to air and water quality, etc., upon which the Hearing Officer relied necessarily only evaluated the replacement of the Existing Building with a new building. The Project presented to the Hearing Officer did not include two commercial buildings on the Property. The Staff Report did not contemplate or study two commercial buildings on the Property. Yet, the Condition requires the Owner to develop the Property with two commercial buildings, which would entail a doubling of impacts, a set of impacts that were neither contemplated nor analyzed.
For this reason, the Condition is a poison pill that sabotages the Project contemplated by the Staff Report and invalidates the CatEx.
To avoid this precise problem, CEQA expressly requires that project descriptions submitted by applicants give an accurate and wholistic description of the entirety of the project proposed such that the environmental analysis may adequately evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the activity being approved. See, e.g., McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1144. Here, the project description for the Project was unilaterally amended at the hearing without notice by the Hearing Officer over the objections of the Owner and Applicant after the environmental review was already completed for the Project proposed. This is simply not how CEQA works.
B. The Condition Is Not Linked to a Legitimate Public Purpose In California, a city’s ability to impose conditions on development projects is limited by the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements, established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. These cases, along with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., ensure that conditions imposed on development are directly related to the project’s impacts and are roughly equivalent to those impacts.
The “nexus” requirement establishes that there must be a clear connection (nexus) between the condition imposed and the specific impact of the development project. For example, a condition requiring a developer to dedicate land for a park must be linked to the increased need for recreational space created by the project. The “proportionality” requirement establishes that the impact of the condition on the developer must be roughly proportional to the impact of the development on the community. This means the condition cannot be excessive or overly burdensome in relation to the project’s effects.
Under CEQA, mitigation measures may only be implemented to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. Here, there is no demonstrated basis for imposition of the Condition on the Project. The Hearing Officer did not make any finding that the Project would have any unmitigated impacts. Indeed, the Condition was not imposed in relation to any “impact” at all.
Absent a legitimate and lawful public purpose connected to impacts of the Project, the Condition must be removed.
C. The Condition Is Inconsistent with the City’s Code and Frustrates Fundamental Due Process
At the subject hearing, the Hearing Officer specifically found on the record that the Project met all of the criteria for issuance of Site Development Permit and found that it was consistent with the applicable planning designations and zoning requirements. This should have entitled the Owner and Applicant to issuance of the Permit, subject to reasonable conditions of approval.
Instead, the Hearing Officer went on to make findings that the Project proponents “failed” to demonstrate that they had met the criteria for issuance of a Demolition Permit under Section
20.80.460 of the Municipal Code and, apparently for this reason, imposed the Condition requiring that the Existing Building remain in addition to the new building.
The fundamental problem with this basis for functionally denying the Project by imposing a condition that renders it infeasible is that the findings needed for approval of a Demolition Permit are not the findings required of an applicant for approval of a Site Development Permit.
The Permit itself requires that the Owner separately and independently apply, in the future, for such a permit. Indeed, Condition 6 of the Permit expressly states: “A demolition permit may be issued for the existing structures only upon the submittal of a complete Public Works Grading Permit application or the submittal of a complete Building Permit application for new construction.” Hence, under the terms of the Permit and the Code itself, by requiring that the Owner meet the burden required for a Demolition Permit before it even seeks one, the Hearing Officer has inappropriately put the proverbial cart squarely before the horse.
This changing of the rules of the game at the last minute, ignoring the published and noticed mandates of the Code, penalizing the Applicant and Owner for not presenting evidence they had no obligation to provide, and deviating from the Project contemplated in the Project application and evaluated in the Staff Report, all amounts to a fundamental violation of the Owner’s due process rights.
Due process requires reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a government decision affecting a protected interest is made. Changing the rules or criteria for evaluation during the hearing, without prior notice to the owner, deprives them of the ability to adequately prepare their case, gather necessary evidence, and present a meaningful defense based on the previously known rules. See, e.g., Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605.
Under CEQA (see e.g. Public Resources Code §21004 and 14 Cal. Code Regs. §14040), mitigation measures that are beyond the powers conferred by law on lead agencies are legally infeasible. Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 276, 291.
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840
MEMORANDUM
To: Joshua Safran, Esq.
Strategy Law, LLP.
1 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700
San Jose, CA 95113
From: Jennifer Kirby, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Date: 06/18/2025
Subject: Technical Analysis of Imposition of Site Development Permit Condition 6, CFA #5845 Race St & San Carlos St (Planning Application #H24-046)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Requirement Infeasibility
Driveway: Existing driveway to remain; does not reduce the number of driveways along Race St. (minimum of two required).
Circulation: CFA ingress and egress restricted to one driveway.
Driveway to be full access for all turning movements. Truck maneuverability throughout the site is constrained and impractical for optimal restaurant operations.
Traffic Study: Findings are irrelevant to the newly imposed condition of retaining the existing building and the resultant site plan changes.
Existing multitenant building
(261 Race Street) to remain.
Retain one driveway along
Race St.
Stormwater and Pervious Area: Pervious area will be reduced to an area less than that of the existing condition. Aboveground stormwater treatment options will not be feasible.
MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the infeasibility of one of the Conditions of Approval for the Chick-fil-A project located at 1301 West San Carlos Street, San Jose, CA 95126. The Condition of Approval of interest requires the existing multitenant building located at 261 Race Street, San Jose, CA 95126, to remain, thus resulting in a two-building project, rather than the single building proposed.
A review by Kimley-Horn reveals issues from a civil site design perspective that include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Retaining the existing multitenant building limits the extents of offsite improvements on Race Street (a widened, detached sidewalk, curb and gutter, additional landscape, etc.). The existing driveway on the northern parcel will remain to maintain access to the multitenant building.
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Assuming CFA retains one of its proposed driveways, there will still be a minimum of two driveways along Race Street between CFA and the northern parcel – one that serves CFA, one that serves the three tenants in the existing building. It is assumed that there will be no cross access between the two parcels, and ingress and egress to each parcel will be channelized through their own driveway.
2. Assuming the City holds CFA to one driveway, all access to the site will circulate through the proposed driveway (located closer to West San Carlos St.) as shown. At a minimum, the driveway can no longer be right-in/right-out only and would need to accept left-turn movements into the site from northbound Race St., both for passenger vehicle and truck circulation. A singular driveway, regardless of its location, along Race St. implies one point of entry and exit for all truck traffic and limits truck maneuverability in and out of said driveway. With a compressed site, truck circulation through the proposed parking field is further constrained by insufficient turn radii. At a minimum, site circulation for passenger vehicles needs to be maintained. A two- parcel project would drastically reduce the parking count and create a site circulation pattern that may affect onsite operations and offsite flow.
The full ramifications of a proposed site plan with one driveway will need to be reanalyzed for trips, queueing, and traffic impacts as the current findings of the traffic study only support a site plan with two driveways for exclusive use by CFA . The striping improvements to lengthen the southbound left-turn pocket in Race St. as requested by the City would also need to modified or disregarded.
3. The natural drainage patterns of the property flow north, toward the multi-tenant building. As such, the project’s stormwater treatment facilities are currently located along the northern property line and within the parcel of the existing multitenant building. The stormwater treatment facilities will be relocated south of the parcel to remain and would remain underground, likely under what would be a drive aisle, due to lack of available above-ground pervious area. Given the location of the building, which is placed per City setback maximums, stormwater treatment cannot be placed elsewhere onsite without further impeding site features like site circulation and parking count. It is assumed that these two parcels would need to be hydraulically separate and that no cross drainage would be permitted.
4. Approximately 40% of the project’s pervious areas is located within the northern parcel that is comprised of exclusively impervious pavement in the existing condition. Additional revisions to the project site in an attempt to provide feasible site circulation would likely further reduce the proposed pervious area to less than that of the existing condition.
APPROXIMATECIVIL LIMIT OFDEMOLITION
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATECIVIL LIMIT OFDEMOLITION
APPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF DEMOLITION
APPROXIMATE CIVILLIMIT OF DEMOLITION
N87°59'03"E103.34'
N2°27'00"W291.66'
N1°42'49"W318.99'
N89°37'57"W9.85'
N43°55'28"E40.86'
2 2
2 5
1 14
14 14
14 12
10 101015
15 8141417
10 8
1418
6 16
12 6
14 1599
51313
10 1012
7312
7 103 9
9 3
123 1321
1 10
1010
2 910
10 END
BEGIN1
5 4 16
5 93 1717141410BEGIN END10RACE STREETWEST SAN CARLOS STREET 1414141461414141414
1414 13
89 1010
CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046PRELIMINARYDEMOLITION PLANC2.0
LEGENDPROPERTY LINECENTER LINEEASEMENT LINEAPPROXIMATE LIMIT OF DEMOLITIONDEMOLISH EXISTING UTILITYEXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING STANDARD DUTY CONCRETE TO BEDEMOLISHEDEXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED ANDREMOVED DEMOLITION NOTES1.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL APPLICABLELOCAL, STATE, AND/OR FEDERAL CODES AND REGULATIONS FOR DEMOLITION,SAFETY OF ADJACENT STRUCTURES, DUST CONTROL, RUNOFF CONTROL ANDDISPOSAL OF DEBRIS.2.ALL MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE PROPERLY DISPOSEDOF BY THE CONTRACTOR IN A LEGAL MANNER AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS BEING REMOVED AREFULLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION, AND THAT THEY DO NOTSERVE ANY FUNCTION FOR IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND THE LIMITS OFDEMOLITION. IF ANY ITEMS ARE IN QUESTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLCONTACT THE OWNER PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF SAID ITEMS. IF DEMOLITION ORCONSTRUCTION ON SITE WILL INTERFERE WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTYOWNER'S TRAFFIC FLOW, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITHADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC FLOW.TEMPORARY RE-ROUTING OF TRAFFIC IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY USINGCALTRANS APPROVED TRAFFIC BARRICADES, BARRELS, AND/OR CONES.TEMPORARY SIGNAGE AND FLAGMEN MAY BE ALSO NECESSARY.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL NECESSARYPERMITS REQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND PAYING ALL SPECIFIED FEES. ANENCROACHMENT PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY FOR DEMOLITIONIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.5.EROSION CONTROL MUST BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON SITEINCLUDING DEMOLITION.6.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH MESH SCREEN AT THEPROJECT LIMITS TO PROTECT PUBLIC FROM ENTERING CONSTRUCTION AREA.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST THE GRADE OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES TOREMAIN.8.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FULL DEPTH SAW CUTS AT EDGES OF EXISTINGPAVEMENT AND SIDEWALK REMOVAL LOCATIONS. ALL CONCRETE PAVEMENTSHALL BE REMOVED TO THE NEAREST SCORE JOINT.9.REFER TO THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR ALL SITEAND SUBSURFACE PREPARATION.
EXISTING UTILITY NOTEEXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AS THEY ARE BELIEVED TO EXISTBASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS BY OTHERS. THE OWNER AND ENGINEER DO NOTACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTENCE, LOCATION,DEPTH, AND DIMENSION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALLINCLUDE CALLING UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT, POTHOLING, AND SURVEYINGTHE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES AT ALL PROPOSED UTILITYCROSSINGS, AREAS OF EXCAVATION, AND WHERE CONSTRUCTION MAY BEAFFECTED BY THE LOCATION OR DEPTH OF THE UTILITY. DISCREPANCIES ORPOTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE REPORTED TOAND RESOLVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
DEMOLITION NOTESDEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING.
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING CURB/CURB AND GUTTER.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING VALLEY GUTTER.
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING STANDARD DUTY CONCRETE SIDEWALK.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING RAISED PLANTER.
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING TREE.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING TRUNCATED DOMES.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING FENCE.
PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITY BOX/VAULT.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING STREET LIGHT AND BOX.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINEPROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING STORM DRAIN INLET.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SEWER LINE.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING WATER METER.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING CURB/CURB AND GUTTER.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT.PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING WATER LINE.PROTECT AND RELOCATE EXISTING "NO PARKING - HERE TO CORNER" SIGN PROTECTION NOTES12345
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PADDEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING LOT LIGHT.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING WALL.
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING BACKFLOW PREVENTER.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING UTILITY VAULT/BOX.
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING WATER METER.
1 1011
234
15141213
586
161718
7 67
GRUB AND REMOVE EXISTING LANDSCAPE AND DEMOLISH AND REMOVE ALLIRRIGATION LINES, DRIPS, VALVES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AS NEEDED.DEMOLISH AND REMOVE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY STRUCTURE9 NORTH
8910
D
D
D
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
RACE STREETWEST SAN CARLOS STREET
EV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
P14 SE-BN78 SEATSIBC FOOTPRINT: 5,480 SF
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
APPROXIMATE CIVILLIMIT OF WORKAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK
APPROXIMATE CIVILLIMIT OF WORK
APPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE13
31 3 31
54 6
6 2
22 N89° 25' 20.85"E137.82'
N1° 42' 49.28"W318.99'
N89° 42' 02.98"W112.40'
N43° 55' 28.45"E40.86' N2° 27' 00.12"W291.66'
30'10'10'
1 2
2 2
Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998
NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYEROSION CONTROLPLAN
1.ALL REFERENCES TO CASQA BMPS ON THIS PLAN REFER TO BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES AS OUTLINED IN THE CALIFORNIA STORMWATER QUALITYASSOCIATION (CASQA) BMP HANDBOOK, LATEST EDITION.2.ADDITIONAL BMP MEASURES BEYOND WHAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MAYAPPLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO:EC-1, SCHEDULINGEC-2, PRESERVATION OF EXISTING VEGETATIONEC-3, HYDRAULIC MULCHWE-1, WIND EROSION CONTROLNS-1, WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICESNS-3, PAVING AND GRINDING OPERATIONSNS-7, POTABLE WATER/IRRIGATIONNS-12, CONCRETE CURINGNS-13, CONCRETE FINISHINGSE-7, STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUMING3.ALL BMPS ON THIS PLAN ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY. FINAL LOCATIONS SHALLBE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE CONTRACTOR AS CONDITIONS DICTATE.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTING, RELOCATING, ANDMAINTAINING ALL BMPS AND MEASURES AS STATED ON THIS SITE MAP IN FULLYFUNCTIONAL CONDITION UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASEOF WORK OR AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE.5.INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL INLETS THAT MAY BESUSCEPTIBLE TO CONSTRUCTION INFLUENCE.
CONTRACTOR TO USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCEWITH NPDES AND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS FORSTORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND DEWATERINGOPERATIONS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL ANDPEDESTRIAN CONTROL AT PROJECT LIMITS AND WHILE PERFORMING WORK INTHE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
EROSION CONTROL NOTES
LEGEND
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE WITHGREEN SCREEN AT PROJECT LIMITS DURING ALL CONSTRUCTION & MOBILIZATIONACTIVITIES.
CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH GREEN SCREEN. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN DURINGALL GRADING & MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES.SE-10, STORM DRAIN CURB INLET PROTECTION. REFER TO DETAIL 2, SHEETC3.1.SC-5, GRAVEL BAG. SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C3.1. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAINDURING ALL GRADING AND MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES.TC-1, STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT. REFER TO DETAIL 3, SHEETC3.1.TC-3, ENTRANCE/OUTLET TIRE WASH. REFER TO DETAIL 4, SHEET C3.1.SE-7, STREET SWEEPING AND VACUUMING.
EROSION CONTROL NOTES123456
PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK LINEEASEMENT OR SETBACK LINECENTERLINEPROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPESTORM DRAIN INLET, MANHOLE, AND CLEAN OUTCHAIN LINK FENCE WITH GREEN SCREENGRAVEL BAGDIRECTION OF EXISTING FLOWINLET SEDIMENT BARRIERCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEMATERIAL STORAGE AND DELIVERY, SANITARY AREA,TRASH STORAGE, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, CONCRETEMANAGEMENT, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENTSTORAGE AREA, AND STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT AREA.CONTRACTOR TO RESIZE AND RELOCATE ASNECESSARY WITH QSP APPROVAL.
DD
NORTHC3.0CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLY
T EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
RACE STREETWEST SAN CARLOS STREET
EV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
P14 SE-BN78 SEATSIBC FOOTPRINT: 5,480 SF
SHORT TERM BICYCLEPARKING (4 SPACES)
TRASH ENCLOSURE
LONG TERM BICYCLESTORAGE AND PARKING
EV CAPABLE CHARGINGSTALLS (10 SPACES)15
71212
95 TRANSFORMER
ADA VAN ACCESSIBLEPARKING STALLS (1 SPACE)EV ACCESSIBLE CHARGINGSTALLS (2 SPACES)EV CAPABLE CHARGINGSTALLS (7 SPACES)
MAIN DISTRIBUTIONPANEL (MDP)
APPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORKPROPERTY LINE
APPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORKEXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORKPROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED DRIVEWAYPROPOSED DRIVEWAY
BUS STOP EASEMENTTO BE VACATED7 PROPOSED 5' CMUSCREENING WALL EVSE CHARGINGSTALLS (5 SPACES)APPROXIMATE CIVILLIMIT OF WORK
7.5'TYP.
9.0'TYP.
8.0'TYP.18.0'TYP.12.0'9.0'TYP.5.0'5.0'
7.3'5.0'
13.8'TYP.
7.0'24.0'18.0'TYP.5.5'19.2'
18.0'TYP.24.0'16.0'TYP.15.0'18.0'TYP24.0'18.0'TYP.10.2'9.0'TYP.
9.0'TYP.9.0'TYP.
9.0'TYP.9.0'TYP.16.0'TYP.
9.0'TYP.18.0'TYP.
3.0'
7.0'7.0' N89°25'21"E137.82'
N1°42'49"W318.99'
N89°42'03"W112.40'
N43°55'28"E40.86'N2°27'00"W291.66'
2.4'
15.0'
24.0'7.0'
35' FLAGPOLE5.0' 15.0'BUILDINGSETBACK5.0'LANDSCAPESETBACK
10.0'BUILDINGSETBACK5.0'LANDSCAPESETBACK
10.0'BUILDINGSETBACK
10.0'BUILDINGSETBACKMOTORCYCLESTALLS (2 SPACES)
7.5'30.0'24.0'
22.4'32.0'
11.7'ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSTALLS (2 SPACES)
EXISTING STREET DEDICATION6 SEE CMPS 8813 FOR CITYIMPROVEMENT PLANS.
TREE WELLS (TYP)
12.6'7.5'
6.0'TYP.
4.3'8.6'
230.9'12.6'STREETEASEMENTDEDICATION
20.1'
7.5'
7.5'TYP.7.5'8.6'STREETEASEMENTDEDICATION
2.1'
24.0'
4.5'EV CAPABLE CHARGINGSTALL (1 SPACE)
9.0'TYP.
18.0'
30.4'7.0'
5.0'5.0'5.0' 6.0'6.0'
6.0'TYP.
4.0' 4.0'
60.0' LEFT TURN POCKETTO BE COMPLETED BY CITY OF SAN JOSEPROPOSED 50.0' EXTENSIONOF LEFT TURN POCKET BY CFA
40.0'PROPOSED 1.1'LANDSCAPEEASEMENT
CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046PRELIMINARYSITE PLANC4.0
LEGENDPROPERTY LINECENTER LINEEASEMENT LINEAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK LINEACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. (FOR REFERENCE ONLY,DO NOT PAINT)PAVEMENT SAWCUT AND JOIN LINECONCRETE WALKCONCRETE PAVEMENTASPHALT CONCRETELANDSCAPE AREAGENERAL NOTES1.ALL AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES ARE 9' WIDE X 18' LONG AND VANACCESSIBLE SPACES ARE 12' WIDE X 18' LONG, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS.3.PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE TO INCLUDE A ROOF COVERING. DESIGN TO BEPROVIDED ON ARCHITECTURAL PLANS IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT (CD)DESIGN PHASE.4.SITE LIGHTING IS SHOWN FOR REFERENCE. SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS FORDETAILS AND LOCATIONS.5.THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENTDUE TO SECTION 20.90.900.B.2.d FOR VISIT-END USES.EASEMENT NOTES OVERALL PARKING SUMMARY TABLEBUILDINGAREA (SF)& SEATS*REQUIREDPARKINGSTALLSTOTALPROVIDEDPARKINGSTALLS****REQUIREDSHORT-TERMBIKE PARKINGPROVIDEDSHORT-TERMBIKEPARKING****REQUIREDLONG-TERMBIKEPARKINGPROVIDEDLONG-TERMBIKEPARKING**ADAREQUIREDADAPROVIDED***EV CAPABLESTALLSREQUIREDEV CAPABLESTALLSPROVIDED*****REQUIREDMOTORCYCLEPARKINGPROVIDEDMOTORCYCLEPARKING5,25078 SEATSNONE6044333(1 VAN, 1STD)3(1 VAN, 1STD)25(7 STALLSINSTALLED UPONOCCUPANCY)(1 VAN, 1 STD)25(7 STALLSINSTALLEDUPON OCCUPANCY)(1 VAN, 1 STD)22
6. AN EASEMENT SHOWN OR DEDICATED ON THE MAP OF TRACT 7388 REVERSIONTO ACREAGE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 2, 1982 AND ON FILE IN BOOK 504, PAGE(S) 9, OF MAPS.FOR: STREET DEDICATION AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.7.AN EASEMENT FOR BUS STOP AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 21, 1982 AS BOOK H035, PAGE 551 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 7471073 OFOFFICIAL RECORDS.IN FAVOR OF: SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICTAFFECTS: AS DESCRIBED THEREIN(AFFECTS PARCEL TWO) *NO PARKING MINIMUM PER ORDINANCE NO. 30857.**REQUIRED NUMBER OF ADA PARKING STALLS IS CALCULATED PER 2022 CBC AND IS BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PROVIDED PARKING STALLS.***REQUIRED NUMBER OF EV CAPABLE STALLS AND EVSE STALLS ARE CALCULATED PER CITY OF SAN JOSE REACH CODE PER CITY ORDINANCE NO. 30311. REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON TABLE 5.106.5.3.1 IN THEORDINANCE AND BASED ON THE PROVIDED QUANTITIES IN THE OVERALL PARKING SUMMARY TABLE.****REQUIRED NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM BICYCLE RACKS SHALL BE 1 PER 50 SEATS OR 1 PER 800 SQ. FT. OF DINING AREA, WHICHEVER REQUIRES THE GREATER NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER TITLE 20, CHAPTER20.90, PART 1, SECTION 20.90.060, TABLE 20-190 OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE.*****REQUIRED NUMBER OF MOTORCYCLE PARKING STALLS SHALL BE 2.5% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PROVIDED PARKING STALLS IF MORE THAN TEN (10) STALLS ARE PROVIDED PER TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.90, PART 1,SECTION 20.90.350.A OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE.NORTH
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLY
T EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
SSS
D
4" SANITARYSEWER POC4" GREASE WASTE POC4" SANITARYSEWER LINE1,500 GALLON GREASEINTERCEPTOR 4" GREASE WASTE LINE
TRASH ENCLOSURE DRAINPROPOSED TRANSFORMERSECONDARYELECTRICAL LINEMAIN DISTRIBUTIONPANEL (MDP) 6" FIRE WATER LINE6" FIRE BACKFLOWWITH FDC
6" FIRE CONNECTION TOEXISTING WATER LINE
2" WATER POCSTORM DRAINOVERFLOWSTORM DRAIN INLET
TRENCH DRAINRACE STREET
WEST SAN CARLOS STREET
6" FIRE WATER POC
2" WATER LINESTORM DRAINOVERFLOWSTORM DRAIN INLET6" CONNECTION TO EXISTINGSANITARY SEWER LINE2" WATER BACKFLOW2" WATER METER2" DOMESTIC WATERCONNECTION TOEXISTING WATER LINE8" CONNECTION TO EXISTINGSTORM DRAIN LINE 8" STORMDRAIN LINEEXISTING 12" SANITARYSEWER LINE
EXISTING 6" SANITARYSEWER LINEEXISTING WATER LINE
EXISTING WATER LINEEXISTING 15"STORM DRAIN LINE
EXISTING 12"STORM DRAIN LINE6" SANITARYSEWER LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
APPROXIMATE CIVILLIMIT OF WORKAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORK
APPROXIMATE CIVILLIMIT OF WORKPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINEGAS METERGAS LINE
4" STORMDRAIN LINE
6" CONNECTION TO EXISTINGSTORM DRAIN LINEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTCONNECTION TOEXISTING GAS LINESTORM DRAINOVERFLOW CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLANC5.0
LEGENDPROPERTY LINECENTER LINEEASEMENT LINEAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORKPROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPESTORM DRAIN INLET, MANHOLE, CLEAN OUTPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PIPESEWER MANHOLE, CLEAN OUT, AREA DRAINPROPOSED WATER PIPEPROPOSED FIRE WATER PIPEPROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINEWATER METER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTERPOST INDICATOR VALVE, FDCEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING UTILITY NOTEEXISTING UTILITY NOTEEXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AS THEY ARE BELIEVED TO EXISTBASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS BY OTHERS. THE OWNER AND ENGINEER DO NOTACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTENCE, LOCATION,DEPTH, AND DIMENSION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALLINCLUDE CALLING UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT, POTHOLING, AND SURVEYINGTHE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES AT ALL PROPOSED UTILITYCROSSINGS, AREAS OF EXCAVATION, AND WHERE CONSTRUCTION MAY BEAFFECTED BY THE LOCATION OR DEPTH OF THE UTILITY. DISCREPANCIES ORPOTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE REPORTED TOAND RESOLVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.EXISTING UTILITIES BOXES/VAULTS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE. EXISTINGCOMMUNICATION CONDUITS (FIBER OPTIC AND COPPER) ALONG THE PROJECTFRONTAGE SHALL BE LOCATED AND PROTECTED.
DDSS
NORTH
D
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLY
T EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
WEST SAN CARLOS STREET
RACE STREET
DMA 1TCM #1SILVA CELL SYSTEMSEE DETAIL 1, THIS SHEET
DMA 2DMA 3
DMA 5
TCM #3EXISTING 271 SFBIORETENTIONPER CPMS 8813TCM #4BIORETENTIONSEE DETAIL 2, THIS SHEETSELF-RETAINING AREA(1,408 SF)DMA 4ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AREA2,549 SF 12"TYP.
6"TYP.6" MAXTYP. 8" SD12" VOID18" BSM12" CLASS IIPERMEABLEMATERIAL4" CLASS II AB 12" MIN24" MAXAB (TYP.)12" MIN24" MAXAB (TYP.)3"ASPHALTICPAVEMENT STRATAGRID S6150, MIRAGRID 2XT, ORAPPROVED EQUAL GEOGRID TO LINEPERIMETER OF SYSTEM WITH 6" TOE(OUTWARD FROM BASE) AND 12" EXCESS(OVER TOP OF DECK)SUBGRADECOMPACTED TO 95%@ 1.5:1 SLOPE OR PERGEOTECHNICALRECOMMENDATIONS SILVA CELL CABLE TIES[635mm (25") OR LONGERHEAVY-DUTY PLASTIC TIES]ATTACHING GEOGRID TO SILVA CELLAT BASE OF UPPER LEG FLARE6" CURB MIRAFI HP570GEOTEXTILE4" PERFORATED PIPE TYP.
INLET
12"X5" OVERFLOW8" INV OUT
MIRAFI HP570GEOTEXTILE SUBGRADECOMPACTED TO 95%@ 1.5:1 SLOPE OR PERGEOTECHNICALRECOMMENDATIONS
SILVA CELL INLET PIPE
CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046STORMWATERCONTROL PLANC7.0NORTH
LEGENDPROPERTY LINECENTER LINEEASEMENT LINEDMA BOUNDARYALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE AREA BOUNDARYSURFACE FLOW DIRECTIONOVERLAND RELEASE PATHLANDSCAPE AREABIORETENTION AREA SILVA CELL SYSTEMNOT TO SCALE1BOXED BIORETENTION SYSTEMNOT TO SCALE2 12" CLASS 2PERMEABLE MATERIALPER CALTRANSSPECIFICATIONS. 8" THICKPLANTER WALLS
4" DIA. PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN AT BOTTOMOF ROCK LAYER @ 6'± O.C. SPACING WITHPERFORATIONS POINTING DOWN. PROVIDE CLEANOUTSAT FINISH GRADE LOCATED AT BEGINNING OF LINEAND AS REQUIRED BY INDUSTRY STDS. 18" BIOTREATMENT-SOIL MIX (BSM) PER "BASMAAREGIONAL BIOTREATMENT SOIL SPECIFICATION2016" DATED APRIL 18, 2016 6" MINOVERFLOW STRUCTURE W/ GRATE -BEYOND (OLDCASTLE CB-1818 OR EQUAL)SEE PLAN FOR SIZE AND LOCATION
SOLID STORMDRAIN PIPE,TIE TO STORM DRAINSYSTEM SIZE AND SLOPEPER PLANS CLEANOUT WITH CAPAT FIN. GRADE
UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUTWITH RIM TO FG.#4 @ 12" E.W.CENTERED INWALL AND SLABCURB & GUTTER WITH 18" WIDECURB CUTS @ 10' O.C. @ LPPLACE 4" MIN. DIA. APPROVEDCOBBLES 0.2 FT BELOW CURBCUTS 2 FT MIN. WIDTH 9" THICK PLANTER SLAB
2"18"12"
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLY
T EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
RACE STREETWEST SAN CARLOS STREET
EV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
P14 SE-BN78 SEATSIBC FOOTPRINT: 5,480 SF
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT6" FIRE BACKFLOW WITH FDC6" FIRE WATER LINE "NO PARKING - HERE TO CORNER" SIGNPROPOSED RED CURB PAINING ANDMARKING AS "FIRE LANE - NO PARKING"
20.0'
CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046PRELIMINARY FIREACCESS & STAGINGPLANC8.0NORTH LEGEND
EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AS THEY ARE BELIEVED TOEXIST BASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS BY OTHERS. THE OWNER AND ENGINEERDO NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE EXISTENCE,LOCATION, DEPTH, AND DIMENSION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT, POTHOLING,AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES ATALL PROPOSED UTILITY CROSSINGS, AREAS OF EXCAVATION, AND WHERECONSTRUCTION MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE LOCATION OR DEPTH OF THEUTILITY. DISCREPANCIES OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS MUST BE REPORTED TO AND RESOLVED BY THE ENGINEERPRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
EXISTING UTILITY NOTE
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLY
T EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
RACE STREETWEST SAN CARLOS STREET
EV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
P14 SE-BN78 SEATSIBC FOOTPRINT: 5,480 SF
CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046
TRUCK PROFILE
PRELIMINARY REFUSETRUCK TURN PLANC8.1NORTH
EV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLYEV CHARGINGONLY
T EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
RACE STREETWEST SAN CARLOS STREET
EV READYEV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READYEV READY
EV READY
EV READYEV READYEV READY
COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
EV CHARGINGONLY EV READY
EV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGEV CHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
CURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERYCURBSIDEDELIVERY
EV READY
RIGHTTURNONLY
P14 SE-BN78 SEATSIBC FOOTPRINT: 5,480 SF
CHICK-FIL-A1301 W. SAN CARLOS STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95126 Chick-fil-A5200 Buffington RoadAtlanta, Georgia30349-2998 NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONH24-046
TRUCK PROFILETRUCK PROFILE
PRELIMINARYDELIVERY TRUCKTURN PLANC8.2NORTH