Mar 5, 2025
City of San José
200 E. Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
By Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 380 North 1st St
Dear San José City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 118-unit housing development project, including six very low-income units, located at 380 North 1st Street. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”).
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan. Of note, increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City must not reject the project, except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to private open space, stepback requirements, landscape buffer, and transformer screening, unless it makes written findings as required by Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)(1) that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (p).) In addition, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
CalHDF notes that members of the Historic Landmarks Commission recommended that the developer “explore adaptive reuse of the existing building in the project, a reduction in the project density, or an increase in the height of the new building to preserve the existing building and maintain the project density.” However, the HAA mandates that if the City were to require the project be developed at a lower density, it would need to make findings that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).) Furthermore, the HAA states that “‘lower density’ includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” (Id. at subd. (h)(8).) If the City were to require adaptive reuse of the existing building, or it were to require that the applicant design a much taller building on a smaller footprint, these requirements would almost certainly impact the ability of the project to provide housing, as taller buildings can often require much more expensive construction techniques and adaptive reuse of commercial buildings can be impractical and costly.
Therefore, if the City were to impose any of these conditions, it would need to make health and safety findings. (Id. at subd. (j)(1).) Obviously, an impact on historic resources does not qualify as an impact on public health and safety.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide badly-needed affordable housing; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
2 of 3
380 N 1ST STREET QOZB LLC
San Jose, California
Sheet Title:
Scale:
Job No.
File No.:
Date:
Sheet No:
22024
04/01/2024
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR
DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
COPYRIGHT 2021.
: Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 408
: Oakland, California 94612
: (510) 451 - 2850
: Planning
: Urban Design
1484 Pollard Rd #3072
Los Gatos, California, 95032
380 N 1ST STREET
H23-007
10/25/2024
7.0 1/16”=1’-0”
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS AND
PERSPECTIVES
A1-1A1-5 B1-1A1-4 B1-4B1-6 B1-8 A1-6B1-10 B1-9PL PL
N SECOND ST.
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
29' - 0"
LEVEL 5
49' - 4"
LEVEL 4
39' - 2"
LEVEL 6
59' - 6"
LEVEL 7
69' - 8"
82' - 3"
UP TO 85' TO TOP OF HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE
69'-8"
TO TOP OF HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
TYPE I-A TYPE III-A
N FIRST ST. ±92' - 0"
T.O. ENCLOSURE
±92' - 0"
ROOF
82' - 3"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
B1-3
17' 12' 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 12'-7"
2.5% STUCCO / 0.5% SIDING
7.2% BRICK 0.4%
BRICK
25.4% STUCCO
9.9% SIDING
9.7% STUCCO
1.2% SIDING
WINDOW AWINDOW B
4.4%
STUCCO
8.1%
STUCCO
B1-2
WINDOW C
A1-5A1-5 A1-5A1-3A1-3 A1-6
PL
TYPE I-A TYPE III-A
PL
BASSETT STREET
A1-2 B1-6A1-4 B1-3B1-7 B1-10
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
29' - 0"
LEVEL 5
49' - 4"
LEVEL 4
39' - 2"
LEVEL 6
59' - 6"
LEVEL 7
69' - 8"
82' - 3"
UP TO 85' TO TOP OF HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE
69'-8"
TO TOP OF HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
±92' - 0"
T.O. ENCLOSURE
±92' - 0"
ROOF
82' - 3"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
17' 12' 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 12'-7"
23.4% STUCCO /
7.5% SIDING
37.3% BRICK
A1-5A1-2
Area of Window
Total area of shade
Area of shade on window
greater than or equal to
30% Area of window
5'-0"
4'-6"
57.3% Shade
38.6% Shade
6'-6"
8'-6"
WINDOW A WINDOW B
30.8% Shade
WINDOW C
45°45°45°
6'-6"
6'-0"
A1-1 Stucco - White
MATERIALS
A1-2
B1-1
Stucco - Dark Grey
Perforated Panel
B1-2 Metal Railing
B1-3
Metal SunshadeB1-4
Green ScreenB1-5
StorefrontB1-6
Vinyl Windows
A1-4 Brick Veneer
A1-6 Painted Mural (Up to 40'), Artwork TBD
B1-7
Glass Railing Juliet BalconyB1-8
BalconyB1-9
Metal TrellisB1-10A1-5 Siding - Dark Grey
A1-3 Stucco - Blue Combination
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
1/16"=1'-0"
MSASA Properties, LLC
San Jose, California
Sheet Title:
Scale:
Job No.
File No.:
Date:
Sheet No:
22024
02/26/2024
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR
DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
COPYRIGHT 2021.
: Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 408
: Oakland, California 94612
: (510) 451 - 2850
: Planning
: Urban Design
3031 Tisch Way 110 Plaza West
San Jose, California, 95128
380 N 1ST STREET
H23-007
3BASSETT ST. ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" @ 22"x34"
3 KEYMAP
4NORTH FIRST ST. ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" @ 22"x34"
4 2BASSETT / N. FIRST ST. PERSPECTIVE
1SHADING DIAGRAM
PL
TYPE I-A TYPE III-A
PL
BASSETT STREET
A1-2 B1-6A1-4 B1-3B1-7 B1-10
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
29' - 0"
LEVEL 5
49' - 4"
LEVEL 4
39' - 2"
LEVEL 6
59' - 6"
LEVEL 7
69' - 8"
82' - 3"
UP TO 85' TO TOP OF HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE
69'-8"
TO TOP OF HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
±92' - 0"
T.O. ENCLOSURE
±92' - 0"
ROOF
82' - 3"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
17' 12' 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 12'-7"
23.4% STUCCO /
7.5% SIDING
37.3% BRICK
A1-5A1-2
4NORTH FIRST ST. ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" @ 22"x34" 2BASSETT / N. FIRST ST. PERSPECTIVE
380 N 1ST STREET QOZB LLC
San Jose, California
Sheet Title:
Scale:
Job No.
File No.:
Date:
Sheet No:
22024
04/01/2024
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR
DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
COPYRIGHT 2021.
: Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 408
: Oakland, California 94612
: (510) 451 - 2850
: Planning
: Urban Design
1484 Pollard Rd #3072
Los Gatos, California, 95032
380 N 1ST STREET
H23-007
10/25/2024
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS AND
PERSPECTIVES
7.1 1/16”=1’-0”
A1-4
PL PL
A1-2 B1-5B1-7 A1-1 B1-6
N SECOND STREET N FIRST STREET
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
29' - 0"
LEVEL 5
49' - 4"
LEVEL 4
39' - 2"
LEVEL 6
59' - 6"
LEVEL 7
69' - 8"
82' - 3"
UP TO 85' TO TOP OF HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE
69'-8"
TO TOP OF HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
TYPE I-A TYPE III-A
±92' - 0"
T.O. ENCLOSURE
±92' - 0"
ROOF
82' - 3"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
17' 12' 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 12'-7"
5.8%
BRICK
4.6%
BRICK
PL PL
A1-5B1-6 A1-4B1-7A1-1
LEVEL 2
17' - 0"
LEVEL 3
29' - 0"
LEVEL 5
49' - 4"
LEVEL 4
39' - 2"
LEVEL 6
59' - 6"
LEVEL 7
69' - 8"
T.O. ENCLOSURE
±92' - 0"
ROOF
82' - 3"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
BASSETT STREET
82' - 3"
UP TO 85' TO TOP OF HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE
69'-8"
TO TOP OF HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
±92' - 0"
TYPE I-A TYPE III-A
B1-4
17' 12' 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 12'-7"
26.3% STUCCO /
10.8% SIDING
43.8% BRICK
EXISTING VTA
PROPERTY
A1-2
A1-1 Stucco - White
MATERIALS
A1-2
B1-1
Stucco - Dark Grey
Perforated Panel
B1-2 Metal Railing
B1-3
Metal SunshadeB1-4
Green ScreenB1-5
StorefrontB1-6
Vinyl Windows
A1-4 Brick Veneer
A1-6 Painted Mural (Up to 40'), Artwork TBD
B1-7
Glass Railing Juliet BalconyB1-8
BalconyB1-9
Metal TrellisB1-10A1-5 Siding - Dark Grey
A1-3 Stucco - Blue Combination
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
1/16"=1'-0"
MSASA Properties, LLC
San Jose, California
Sheet Title:
Scale:
Job No.
File No.:
Date:
Sheet No:
22024
02/26/2024
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR
DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
COPYRIGHT 2021.
: Architecture
: 1970 Broadway, Suite 408
: Oakland, California 94612
: (510) 451 - 2850
: Planning
: Urban Design
3031 Tisch Way 110 Plaza West
San Jose, California, 95128
380 N 1ST STREET
H23-007
2RAILROAD SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" @ 22"x34"
2 KEYMAP
3NORTH SECOND ST. ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16" = 1' - 0" @ 22"x34"
3 1RAILROAD / N. SECOND ST. PERSPECTIVE
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Outlook
FW: Summary of Agenda Items.
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Tue 3/11/2025 7:43 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: brian darby < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 12:06 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Summary of Agenda Items.
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Brian Darby
Date: March 10, 2025
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I hope you are doing well.
I’m writing to share a consolidated summary of recent council documents, key takeaways and observations. Each document presents valuable insights into our city's development, operations, and financial health. I've also included a few recommendations to enhance clarity, encourage stronger community engagement, and promote sustainability in future projects.
Key Highlights and Observations
1. 380 North Development Proposal
What’s Good:
The project supports San José’s Climate Smart Strategy by adding higher-density housing near transit.
Six units are set aside for very-low-income households, contributing to affordable housing goals.
Public outreach has been conducted, with some community support.
Areas to Consider:
The demolition of a City Landmark raises preservation concerns. 3/11/25, 10:43 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 1/3
Residents voiced worries about limited parking, privacy, and loss of views.
More emphasis on sustainable alternatives—like adaptive reuse of the existing building— could strengthen the proposal.
2. Apple Developer Program License Agreement
What’s Good:
The agreement ensures strong protection for developers’ intellectual property.
Clear guidelines on app development and distribution processes.
Areas to Consider:
The complexity of the legal language could be overwhelming for smaller or newer developers.
Offering a simplified summary or FAQs could help make the agreement more accessible.
3. San José Investment Report (Q4 2024)
What’s Good:
Transparent reporting with a clear breakdown of portfolio composition and performance.
A conservative investment strategy helps safeguard public funds.
Areas to Consider:
The report could offer more insight into potential market risks and future trends.
Including a forward-looking analysis could enhance financial planning.
4. Olivia Bergin Memorandum (HMH Inc.)
What’s Good:
The project supports economic growth through the expansion of industrial facilities.
The rezoning aligns with city planning policies.
Areas to Consider:
There’s limited discussion about the environmental impact of construction and land use.
Greater community engagement—especially regarding traffic, noise, and environmental impact—could strengthen community trust.
5. PSFSS Presentation (Q2 Financial Report)
What’s Good:
The presentation provides a solid overview of debt management and financial health.
Highlights strong debt issuance strategies and upcoming financial initiatives.
Areas to Consider:
Some of the technical terminology may be difficult for non-experts to follow.
Using simpler language and visuals could make these complex financial details more accessible.
3/11/25, 10:43 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/3 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6. Public Safety Financial Reports
What’s Good:
Demonstrates solid financial management and a healthy return on investments.
Comprehensive coverage of risk management and revenue collection.
Areas to Consider:
Opportunities exist to improve community engagement, particularly in how financial decisions are communicated.
Deeper exploration of emerging risks could further strengthen the city's financial strategies.
Overall Recommendations
1. Simplify Complex Materials
Use clearer, more accessible language in legal and financial documents.
Introduce visuals and summaries to make information easier to understand.
2. Strengthen Community Engagement
Expand outreach efforts, including interactive forums and feedback opportunities.
Provide clearer explanations on how community input shapes final decisions.
3. Focus on Sustainability in Development Projects
Encourage developers to consider sustainable alternatives, such as adaptive reuse and eco- friendly materials.
Clearly outline how new projects align with San José’s environmental goals.
Final Thoughts
I was trying some new, more efficient ways to express my thoughts to the council, I hope you all have a nice day.
Respectfully
Brian Darby
3/11/25, 10:43 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 3/3