(a) Resolution — San Jose City Council, September 15, 2026

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

1 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

JOSE CERTIFYING THE GLIDER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FILE NO S.

H23-028, T23-022 AND ER23-230) AND MAKING CERTAIN

FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS,

MITIGATION MEASURES, AND ALTERNATIVES,

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM , ALL IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED

WHEREAS, the proposed Glider Residential Project includes a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one approximately 9.51-gross-acre parcel at the northwestern corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive (511 Cozy Drive, APN 689- 08-001) into 80 residential parcels, a

0.68 acre common parcel, and 2.09 acres of public right-of-way; and a Site Development Permit to allow the demolition of the existing vacant school buildings and the removal of 54 trees for the development of 64 single- family detached homes and 16 single- family attached homes, for a total of 80 residential units, a privately owned and publicly accessible open space, and two new public internal streets in the City of San José, which real property is sometimes referred to herein as the “subject property,” and the proposed Glider Residential Project referred to herein as the “Project”; and

WHEREAS, approval of the Project would constitute a project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related State and local implementation guidelines and policies promulgated thereunder, all as amended to date (collectively, "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, the City of San José (“City”), acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for the Glider Residential Project (File Nos. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230) dated January 9, 2026; and SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

2 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

WHEREAS, the City prepared a First Amendment to the Draft EIR that included responses to comments received during the public comment period and revisions to the text of the Draft EIR; and

WHEREAS, the First Amendment and the Draft EIR together comprise the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the FEIR concluded that implementation of the Project could result in certain significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce some but not all of those significant impacts to a less-than-significant level; and

WHEREAS, on August 26 , 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of San José reviewed the FEIR and recommended the City Council find the FEIR was completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and further recommended the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the FEIR; and

WHEREAS, as required under CEQA, a program to monitor and report on the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment has been prepared for the Project (“the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program”); and

WHEREAS, the decision- making body of a public agency is required under CEQA to make certain findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts and adopt a statement of overriding considerations for any impact that may not be reduced to a less than significant level;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

3 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein as if set forth in the body of this Resolution.

2. The City Council finds and certifies the FEIR has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA.

3. The FEIR was presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the Project, and, as lead agency for the Project, the City Council finds the FEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of San José and designates the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement at 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, California 95113 as the custodian of records on which the decision of the City is based.

4. The City Council recognizes the FEIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other information in response to comments on the Draft EIR or obtained after the Draft EIR was issued and circulated for public review and hereby finds such changes and additional information would not result in: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR, (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project.

5. The City Council finds and determines that recirculation of this FEIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA; and

6. The City Council makes the following findings with respect to potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project , as identified in the FEI R, with the understanding that all the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the FEIR.

GLIDER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the FEIR, it was determined that the Project would not result in a potential significant effect on the environment with respect to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources , biological SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

4 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
resources, energy, geology soils , hydrology and water quality , land use and planning , mineral resources , population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. A summary of the reasons for this determination can be found in Chapters 3.6, 3.8, and 4.0 of the Draft EIR. No further findings are required for these subject areas.

Findings for Impacts Less than Significant with Mitigation

Air Quality

Impact: AIR-3: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration because the proposed project would have a cancer risk of 17.11 cases per million, which would exceed the Bay Area Air District (“Air District”) threshold of 10 cases per million during construction of the project.

Mitigation: MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading permits, and/or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant shall prepare and submit a construction operations plan that includes specifications of the equipment to be used during construction to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying that the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth below.

• All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower operating on the site for more than 2 days continuously or 20 total hours, shall, at a minimum meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Tier 4 Final emission standards.
• If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, all construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than 2 continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve an 85 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust and 40 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide ( “NO
X”) in comparison to uncontrolled
equipment.
• The project applicant shall submit a construction operations plan prepared by the construction contractor that outlines how the contractor will achieve the measures outlined in this mitigation SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

5 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
measure. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee for review and approval prior to the start of any construction activity. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
o List of activities and estimated timing;
o Equipment that would be used for each activity;
o Manufacturer’s specifications for each equipment that provides the emissions level; or the manufacturer’s
specifications for devices that would be added to each piece of equipment to ensure the emissions level meet the
thresholds in the mitigation measure;
o Construction contractor’s approach for ensuring that the measures listed are monitored;
o Construction contractor’s approach for remedying any
exceedance of the thresholds; and
o Frequency and method the construction contractor will use to report compliance with this mitigation measure.

Finding: With implementation of MM AIR -1, cancer risk associated with the Project would be reduced by approximately 64 percent to 6.16 cases per million which is below the Air District threshold of 10 per million. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Construction equipment and associated heavy -duty truck traffic that generate diesel exhaust, which is a known Toxic Air Contaminant, pose a health risk to nearby receptors. For the purposes of this analysis, receptors include locations where sensitive populations would be present for extended periods of time, including all existing childcare and residences surrounding the Project site. A health risk assessment of the Project construction activities was completed for the proposed Project. The assessment evaluated potential health effects for nearby receptors (within 1,000 feet of the Project site) from construction emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”).

The chronic hazards from DPM and PM

2.5 would be below the Air District
thresholds of significance. However, DPM (characterized by PM10 exhaust) emissions would result in an incremental cancer risk of approximately 17.11 individuals per one million, which exceeds the Air District’s significance threshold of 10 individuals per one million. This would be a potentially significant impact. MM AIR-1 requires the use of Tier 4 Final engines for all construction equipment equal to or greater than 25 horsepower, reducing SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

6 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
the DPM cancer risk to 6.16 in one million. Therefore, with mitigation, Project construction would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Cultural Resources

Impact: CUL-2: The project site has a high potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be impacted by project construction.

Mitigation: MM CUL-2a: Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits (whichever occurs first), the project applicant shall conduct a Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training for construction personnel. The training shall be facilitated by a Secretary of the Interior - qualified Archaeologist in collaboration with a representative from a Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1.

Documentation (i.e., sign- in sheets) verifying that Cultural Sensitivity Training has been conducted shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee.

MM CUL-2b: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits (whichever occurs first), a qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission ( “NAHC”) for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, shall prepare a monitoring plan for all earthmoving activities. The Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee for review and approval. The Archaeologist and Native American Monitor shall be present during applicable earthmoving activities such as, but not limited to, trenching, initial or full grading, boring on-site, or major landscaping.

Finding: With implementation of MM CUL-2a and MM CUL-2b, the Project’s potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

7 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Native American and historic artifacts have been found throughout San José, particularly near creeks and rivers. Canoas Creek is located approximately 300 feet north of the project site. Additionally, based on the findings of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, there are known pre- contact resources within 0.5 miles of the project site.

The Project would require construction activities such as grading and excavation, which could result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of Native American and historic era archaeological deposits.

Implementation of MM CUL-2a would prepare construction personnel in the event that unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered during project construction and MM CUL- 2b requires a Native American and Archaeological Monitor to be present during earthmoving activities to assist with identifying an inadvertent discovery. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact: HAZ-1: The project site may have pesticide contamination due to its previous dry farming use. Soils removed or disturbed during project construction would create a potentially significant impact from the pesticides in the soil if present.

HAZ-2: The project site may be contaminated with pesticides given its previous use for dry farming, meaning there could be a health risk for future residents.

HAZ-3: There is a school 0.06 mile from the project site and construction activity would be expected to involve the transport and use of hazardous materials.

Mitigation: MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits, the project applicant shall retain a licensed professional to prepare a Limited Phase II Environmental Investigation that includes collecting and analyzing shallow soil samples in the grass y field and along structures to determine whether organochlorine pesticides and metal-based pesticides, arsenic and lead from previous agricultural operations are present on -site at concentrations above established Environmental Screening Levels. The results of soil sampling and testing shall be provided to the City’s Supervising Planner of the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

8 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Department and the Municipal Compliance Officer of the Environmental Services Department for review.

If pesticide concentrations are found above residential Environmental Screening Levels, the applicant shall obtain regulatory oversight from Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. A Site Management Plan, Removal Action Plan, or equivalent document shall be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant. The plan shall establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices. The plan and evidence of regulatory oversight shall be provided to the City’s Supervising Planner of the Planning Building and Code Enforcement Department and the Municipal Compliance Officer of the Environmental Services Department

Finding: MM HAZ -1 would ensure that sampling, analysis, and removal of contaminants, if identified above residential screening levels, occurs prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits (whichever occurs first). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The project site may have pesticide contamination due to its previous dry farming use. Additionally, while no records exist of undocumented fill, undulating topography was observed within the northern grassy area, which may be indicative of prior soil import and potential soil contamination. Soils removed or disturbed during Project construction could create a potentially significant impact to the surrounding environment if pesticides or other contaminants are present. Prior to initiation of earthwork activities, a Limited Phase II Environmental Investigation including soil sampling and analytical testing would be conducted at planned earthwork locations to establish appropriate project site soil management procedures.

If contaminants are found above residential Environmental Screening Levels, the applicant would be required to obtain regulatory oversight and implement remedial measures and/or soil management practices.

Implementation of MM HAZ -1 would ensure that sampling, analysis, and removal of contaminants, if identified above residential screening levels, occurs prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits (whichever occurs first) . Additionally, the handling, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Public Resources Code, and other State and local regulations, which would limit the risk of release of contaminants.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

9 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Therefore, impacts related to soil contamination and exposure of nearby sensitive receptors, and future occupants from construction of the Project would be reduced to less than significant.

Noise

Impact: NOI-1: The project construction would last for more than 12 months and would require construction work on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which would result in a potentially significant temporary construction noise impact.

Mitigation: MM NOI-1: Construction Noise Logistics Plan. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits (whichever occurs first), the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting and notification of construction schedules, equipment to be used, and des ignation of noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints. The construction noise logistics plan shall be implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses.

As part of the noise logistics plan, the project applicant shall include, but is not limited to, the following Best Management Practices:

• Pile Driving is prohibited.
• Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on- site or off -site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site- specific “construction noise mitigation plan” and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential use.
• Construct minimum 8-foot-high solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.
• Equip all internal combustion engine- driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

10 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
• Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. • Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise- sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of “noisy” construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

Finding: MM NOI -1 would require the project applicant to prepare a construction noise logistics plan. With implementation of MM NOI-1, the Project will have a less than significant noise impact during construction.

Facts in Support of the Finding: MM NOI-1 requires a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting or notification of construction schedules, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond t o neighborhood complaints. These measures must be in place prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits (whichever comes first) and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. As such, construction- related impacts from construction equipment noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

11 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Tribal Cultural Resources

Impact: TCR-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource because of the proximity to Canoas Creek and soil conditions on the site.

TCR-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, because the project site has high buried site potential.

Mitigation: Implement MM CUL-2a and MM CUL-2b.

Finding: Implementation of MM CUL- 2a and MM CUL- 2b would require cultural sensitivity training, archaeological monitoring, and Native American monitoring, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The project site is entirely situated upon Holocene-era deposits, which are known to have the potential to contain archaeological deposits. The likelihood of this increases with a less steep slope and proximity to water resources. The project site is relati vely flat and located approximately 300 feet south of Canoas Creek. Additionally, the records search results from the Northwest Information Center indicate that three pre-contact resources have been recorded within the 0.5- mile search radius. Considering the proximity to Canoas Creek, and soil conditions, there is a high potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources on the project site that could be impacted by project construction and would constitute a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to less than significant by MM CUL-2a and MM CUL-2b.

Ground-disturbing activities, particularly those involving excavation, may uncover previously unknown Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project would include MM CUL -2a, which requires cultural sensitivity training for construction personnel, as well as MM CUL- 2b, requiring archaeological and Tribal monitoring during ground disturbance. In addition, Project construction would adhere to City Standard Permit Conditions, which require a stop- work protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery to ensure that undiscovered Tribal Cultural Resources are not adversely affected by Project-related construction activities.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

12 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

SIGNIFICANT and UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact: GHG-1: The proposed project would generate 19.52 Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) per capita daily as estimated by the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool, exceeding the residential threshold of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita, meaning it would not comply with Criterion A of the Air District’s 2022 Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Significance thresholds.

GHG-2: The proposed project would conflict with adopted reduction strategies including the State’s Scoping Plan, the Air District’s Plan Bay Area, and the GHG Reduction Strategy (due to inconsistency with General Plan and significant VMT impact).

GHG-CUM-1: The proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with Criterion A of the Air District’s 2022 GHG Significance thresholds or the State’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality. As the analysis considers global, Statewide, and regional GHG emissions, there is a potentially significant cumulative impact.

Mitigation: Implement MM TRANS-1.

Finding: With implementation of MM TRANS-1, which would require a Transportation Demand Management ( “TDM”) plan to reduce VMT impacts, the Project would have reduced VMT but would remain above the residential threshold for VMT. Furthermore, the Project would not be consistent with applicable policies, plans, and regulations related to GHG emissions. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of MM TRANS-1.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed Project and its associated GHG emissions were not considered in the City’s GHG Reduction Strategy (“GHGRS”) because that GHG analysis is based on the General Plan land use designations, strategies and policies, and residential uses were not assumed to occur on sites with a Public/Quasi-Public General Plan land use designation. However, the proposed Project was submitted under the provisions of Assembly Bill 1893 ( “Builder’s Remedy ”) and is therefore deemed consistent with the General Plan for purposes of analysis.

Therefore, the Project was evaluated against the design elements in Criterion A of the Air District’s 2022 GHG Significance thresholds. The Project would satisfy three of the four design elements as outlined in the Air SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

13 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

District GHG threshold Criterion A. Since the proposed Project is inconsistent with the VMT design element, it would have a significant and unavoidable impact per Air District GHG threshold Criterion A. To reduce GHG emissions impacts, the Project proponent must implement MM TRANS-1 that aims to reduce VMT impacts as well as GHG impacts, through the implementation of TDM plan which includes a school pool program, a Safe Routes to School program, and a Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program. Even with implementation of MM TRANS-1, the Project’s VMT would remain above the residential threshold, and consequently GHG emissions would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Transportation

Impact: TRANS-2: The proposed project would exceed the significant impact threshold of 11.39 daily VMT per capita. The project’s daily VMT, as estimated by the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool, is 19.52 per capita.

TRANS-CUM-1: The proposed project would have a potentially significant contribution to cumulative VMT impacts.

Mitigation: MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Directors’ designee a copy of the applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) or other evidence demonstrating that the following programmatic measures will be implemented by the homeowner’s association (HOA) for the life of the project.

• School Pool Program (TP -01): Implement a School Pool Program to transport students from the development to schools without a busing program or schools where students cannot walk or bike. It is expected that 100 percent of residents will participate in the school pool program due to the close proximity to nearby schools.
• Access to Neighborhood Schools (TP-12): Implement a “Safe Routes to School” plan for students who are walking and biking to and from nearby schools.
• Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program (TP-18): Provide a program that targets individual attitudes and behavior toward travel and provides information and tools for residents to analyze and alter their travel SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

14 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
behavior. All households (100 percent of residents) are expected to enroll.
• On-site TDM Coordinator: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement or the Directors’ designee a copy of the applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions ( “CC&Rs”) or other evidence demonstrating that the programmatic measures listed above will be implemented by the homeowner’s association (“HOA”) for the life of the project.
o After the project is occupied, the HOA must verify that these programmatic measures continue to be implemented for as long as the project remains occupied. Every year, the HOA must submit a completed TDM Compliance Form and associated
administrative fees to the City Department of Transportation. A TDM Compliance Form must include a summary of the following information about the project.
 Project Size: The number of for -sale/rental, market - rate/affordable, on site/off -site units and the number of bundled/unbundled/shared parking spaces.
 Point of Contact: Provide the property address, the name of the HOA, and the contact person’s name and
information
 Documentation of Existing Programmatic Measures:

Report all ongoing programmatic TDM measure(s), proof
of implementation (as described for each applicable
measure in Appendix C to the City’s Transportation
Analysis Handbook), and any changes from the origi nal
plan or past years.
o The first submission of the TDM Compliance Form is due within 30 calendar days of the 18- month anniversary of the building permit final inspections . Subsequent annual
submissions are also due within 30 calendar days of that date (thereafter, the “Submittal Date”). Upon five consecutive years of complete submittals of the TDM Compliance Forms, the submittal requirement shifts to every three years. If, at any time, the HOA fails to timely submit a TDM Compliance Form or submits evidence that implementation of the programmatic measures is incomplete or has ceased, this relaxed timeline SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

15 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
will revert to the annual submittal schedule until the project again demonstrates five consecutive years of compliance. o If a TDM Compliance Form is not submitted by the Submittal Date in any year in which a submittal is required under this condition, the HOA will incur a fee of $10,000, provided that the City has delivered written notice of non-compliance to the HOA at leas t 15 days prior to the fee becoming due. If the TDM Compliance Form is still not submitted 90 days after the relevant Submittal Date, the HOA will incur an additional $5,000 fee, for a cumulative total of $15,000 for that submittal period. The same penalties would apply if a submitted TDM compliance Form includes evidence that implementation of the programmatic measures is incomplete or has ceased.

Finding: MM TRANS -1 would require a TDM Plan to reduce VMT from 19.52 to

17.04. Since 17.04 would still exceed the threshold value of 11.39, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of MM TRANS-1.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The City’s VMT impact threshold is 15 percent below the citywide average VMT per capita for residential developments. Thus, residential projects are said to create a significant adverse impact when the estimated project -generated VMT exceeds the existing citywide average VMT per capita minus 15 percent. Currently, the reported citywide average is 13.4 daily VMT per capita which equates to a significant impact threshold of 11.39 daily VMT per capita for this Project. Projects that trigger a significant VMT impact can implement strategies described in the San José Transportation Analysis Handbook, such as project design characteristics, multimodal network improvements, parking measures, and TDM measures to reduce the project’s VMT per capita. A significant i mpact is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when the strategies and VMT reductions implemented result in a reduction in VMT per capita below the residential threshold.

The Project is located in an immitigable VMT area for residential development as mapped by the City’s Department of Transportation (2021 per Capita VMT per Parcel). The project applicant would pay the City’s VMT offset overriding consideration payment of $4,055,796 to fund multimodal improvements in the surrounding area as determined by the Department of Public Works , and subject to an annual escalation in line with the Engineering News -Record Construction Cost Index . Additionally, a TDM Plan would be required as per MM TRAN-1 to mitigate VMT impacts to the extent feasible under CEQA Guidelines Section 21002 and Section SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

16 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
15126.4. The Project would incorporate several VMT reducing features including a school pool program, a Safe Routes to School program, and voluntary travel behavior change programs. With the implementation of MM TRANS-1, the Project VMT per capita would be reduced to 17.04, which still exceeds the significance impact threshold for residential projects of 11.39 daily VMT per capita. Therefore, VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative impacts related to VMT are also significant and unavoidable.

The City’s Envision San José 2040 General Plan establishes a goal to reduce VMT per service population by 20 percent from 2017 levels; however, this goal has not yet been achieved, and a significant cumulative VMT condition al ready exists citywide. As concluded in Impact TRANS -2, the proposed project would generate VMT that is not at least 15 percent below the citywide average and therefore would result in a project -level significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Although the Project would implement MM TRANS -1 (Transportation Demand Management Plan) to reduce VMT to the extent feasible, this measure would not reduce VMT to a less than significant level. Because the Project would add VMT to an existing significant cumulative condition and no feasible mitigation is available to fully avoid or substantially lessen this contribution, the Project’s incremental contribution would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative transportation impact.

FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES

To comply with CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce any anticipated significant impacts from the project and try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a common- sense approach, meaning t he alternatives should be reasonable, “foster informed decision- making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts.

The alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR were developed with the goal of being at least potentially feasible, given Project objectives and site constraints, while avoiding or reducing the Project’s identified environmental effects. Six alternatives were explored, including three alternatives that were rejected and not analyzed. The following three alternatives were fully analyzed as alternatives to the proposed Project:

1. No Project Alternative

2. Reduced Density/Additional Park Acreage Alternative

3. Reduced Trip Generation Alternative
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

17 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Project Objectives

The objectives for the Project are as follows:
• Expand housing supply to satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) by providing a mix of market-rate and below-market-rate housing. • Provide a walkable, tree- lined neighborhood environment with safe pedestrian circulation, sidewalks, and visual compatibility with the surrounding community. • Enhance neighborhood livability through publicly accessible open space, including a privately owned and maintained park.
• Promote architectural quality and neighborhood compatibility by building a mix of attached and detached single-family homes.
• Promote development that minimizes displacement and ensures equitable access to housing.
• Revitalize a vacant and underutilized site in an established single- family neighborhood and promote infill development in the heart of a residential neighborhood.

Selection of Alternatives

CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law on the subject have found that feasibility of an alternative can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The CEQA Guidelines advise that such factors can include (but are not necessarily limited to) the suitability of an alternative site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with the general plan or other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent can “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site” (Section 15126.6[f][1]).

1. No Project Alternative

A. Description of Alternative: The No Project Alternative is defined as no changes from existing conditions. The proposed 64 single- family detached homes and 16 single-family attached homes would not be constructed on the project site. The existing school and associated structures would remain on- site. In this scenario, off-site improvements would not occur, grading would not take place, and no trees would be removed.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Under the No Project Alternative, no construction would occur, and, as a result, no impacts associated with ground disturbing activities, including potential impacts related to Air Quality, Cultural SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

18 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

Resources, Hazards, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources would occur. The Project site would remain a vacant school, and as such, would not generate VMT in excess of the City’s threshold and would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment from GHG Emissions and Transportation.

Therefore, all of the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided under this alternative. Furthermore, the proposed Project’s potentially significant impacts related to air quality, cultural resour ces, hazardous materials, noise and tribal cultural resources impacts would be avoided and there would be no need for mitigation. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would avoid these impacts.

C. Findings: The No Project Alternative would retain the existing land uses on the project site, maintaining the baseline conditions. While this Alternative would avoid all of the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts and its significant and unavoidable impacts, this alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives.

2. Reduced Density/Additional Park Acreage Alternative

A. Description of Alternative: Under the Reduced Density/Additional Park Acreage Alternative, 49 single- family detached and 14 single- family attached units would be developed, for a total of 62 units. This is 18 fewer than the proposed project, with a resulting density of 6.52 du/acre. The privately owned and maintained, public accessible open space ( “POPOS”) parcel would be 2.1 acres rather than the proposed 0.68 acres. Under this Alternative, 13 percent of the units (8 units) would still be reserved for deed restricted lower-income housing.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: While the Reduced Density/ Additional Park Acreage Alternative would result in slightly lower VMT and GHG impacts, under this alternative, GHG and Transportation impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. However, due to the reduced Project footprint, the Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazardous materials, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed Project but would still require mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, reducing the scale of the proposed Project would not substantially lessen or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts.

C. Findings: The Reduced Density/ Additional Park Acreage Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the Project. While this Alternative would result in slightly lower VMT and GHG impacts, they would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, it would not meet the Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project , as the number of new residential units would be reduced from 80 to 62 . The Project objectives are centered on providing housing units in the City of San José to satisfy its regional housing needs allocation while SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

19 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
retaining a reasonable return on investment. Therefore, this Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts and may also render the Project economically infeasible.

3. Reduced Trip Generation Alternative

A. Description of Alternative: Under the Reduced Trip Generation Alternative , 15 single-family detached homes would be developed. This is 65 fewer units than the proposed project. Under this alternative, none of the units would be reserved for deed restricted lower-income housing. The resulting density would be 1.68 du/ac.

The POPOS parcel would be about 7.44 acres.

B. Comparison of Environmental Impacts: Per the City’s Policy 5 -1 for Transportation Analysis, infill projects of 15 or fewer single- family detached residential units or of single-family attached residential projects of 25 or fewer units are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Therefore, the Reduced Trip Generation Alternative would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable VMT and GHG impacts to a less than significant level. Aside from VMT and GHG impacts, impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Tribal Cultural Resources would be reduced, but the mitigation measures that apply to the Project would still be required under this alternative to reduce impacts to less than significant.

C. Findings: The Reduced Trip Generation Alternative would reduce all significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. However, while impacts associated with this Alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, this alternative would develop 65 fewer residential units than the proposed project and would, therefore, not achieve the underlying purpose or Project objective to expand housing supply to the same extent as the proposed project.

Environmentally Superior Project

Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. The environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the potentially significant impacts and the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would retain the site in its current condition. This alt ernative would avoid all construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed Project, and no mitigation or imposition of Standard Permit Conditions would be required. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alter native; however, it would not achieve any of the Project objectives.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

20 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Beyond the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Trip Generation Alternative would be the next most environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce all significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. Aside from GHG and VMT -related mitigation, this Alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project. It would meet the Project objective to enhance neighborhood livability through publicly accessible open space to a greater extent than the proposed project by providing more park space than the proposed project. However, while impacts associated with the Reduced Trip Generation Alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed project, this alternative would develop 65 fewer residential units than the proposed project and would, therefore, not achieve the underlying purpose or Project objective to expand housing supply to the same extent as the proposed project.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council of the City of San José hereby adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project as outlined above and the anticipated economi c, social, and other benefits of the Project.

A. Significant Unavoidable Impact. With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the administrative record, the City has determined the Project has significant unmitigated or unavoidable impacts, as set forth above, associated with GHG emissions and VMT.

B. Overriding Considerations. The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations that this Project, has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of the economic, legal, environmental, social, technological or other considerations noted below and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, because the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and adverse impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding conside ration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are supported by evidence in the administrative record that includes, but is not limited to, the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

21 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

C. Benefits of the Proposed Project . The City Council has considered the administrative record on the proposed project and other written materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all hearings related to the Project, and does hereby determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits:

• Diverse Income Housing Options: The Project would expand housing to satisfy the City’s Regional Housing Needs A llocation, aligning with long-term planning goals and regional housing needs for market-rate and below -market-rate housing. The Project will develop 80 for -sale single-family housing units. A total of 11 units (13%) would be reserved for low -income households earning up to 80 percent of Area Median Income.
• Privately Owned Public Open Space: The Project would provide a

0.68-acre park that will be open to the public. The park will include shade trees, picnic tables, open turf, benches, and a bicycle rack. The park will be privately owned and maintained.
• Transportation Improvements: The Project would generate $4,055,796 (and subject to an annual escalation in line with the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index) to offset the VMT impacts for the construction of safe pedestrian circulation and connectivity infrastructure that would include continuous sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and connectivity to existing bicycle facilities . The Project would support the City’s long- range multimodal transportation goals and improve local pedestrian and bicycle access.
• Infill Development: The Project would replace an underutilized vacant school building with residential development designed to comply with the City’s Reach Code and Green Building Ordinance, including all - electric construction and energy -efficient building design, reducing operational energy demand compared to older development. Infill development would also promote utilization of existing urban infrastructure and services thereby reducing pressure on undeveloped lands or environmentally sensitive lands.

The City Council has weighed each of the above benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects of the Project and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable and overridden.

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026

22 T-55008.001/2335044_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(a)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and incorporated and adopted as part of this Resolution herein is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project required under California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program identifies impacts of the Project, corresponding mitigation, designation for responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action.

LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS

The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council based the foregoing findings and approval of the Project are located at the City’s Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, San José City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, California, 95113, and are also available for viewing electronically on the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement website. The City Council hereby designates the City’s Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement at the Director’s office at 200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower, San José, California, 95113, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based.

ADOPTED this ____ day of _________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, MMC
City Clerk

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Glider Residential Project
Environmental Impact Report
File Nos. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230
August 2025

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230
Page | 1 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

P R E F A C E
S
ection 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring and reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.

T
he Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the proposed Glider Residential Project (“Project”) concluded that the implementation of the Project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the Project or are required as a condition of Project approval. This MMRP addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.

T
his document does not discuss those subjects for which the EIR concluded that the impacts from implementation of the Project would be less than significant.

T
he mitigation measures enumerated in this document would reduce the level of impact of potential environmental effects of the proposed action. In all cases, these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of effects determined to be significant prior to mitigation to less than significant levels.

I
, _____________________________, the applicant, on the behalf of _________________________________, hereby agree to implement the mitigation measures described below which have been developed in conjunction with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Project. I understand that these mitigation measures or substantially similar measures will be adopted as conditions of approval with my development permit request to avoid or significantly reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level.

P
roject Applicant’s Signature _____________________________________________ D
ate___________________________________________________________ Kelley Rutchena
TTLC San Jose - Glider, LLC
August 14, 2026

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 2 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-3: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration because the proposed project would have a cancer risk of 17.11 cases per million, which would exceed the Bay Area Air District threshold of 10 cases per million during construction of the project.

MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading
permits, and/or building permits (whichever occurs
earliest), the project applicant shall prepare and submit a construction operations plan that includes specifications of the equipment to be used during construction to the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or
the Director’s designee. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying that the equipment included in the plan meets the
standards set forth below.
• All construction equipment larger than 25
horsepower operating on the site for more than 2
days continuously or 20 total hours, shall, at a
minimum meet United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 Final emission
standards.
• If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, all
construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower
used at the site for more than 2 continuous days or
20 hours total shall meet EPA emission standards for
The Project applicant
shall submit a
construction
management plan for
review and approval.

Implement the
approved construction
management plan
Prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading, or
building permits
(whichever occurs first)

During construction
Director of
Planning,
Building, and
Code
Enforcement or
the Director’s
designee.

Review and
approve the
construction
management plan.

Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading, or building
permits (whichever
occurs earliest.)

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 3 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance Oversight
Responsibility
Actions/Reports Monitoring Timing
or Schedule
Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter
emissions control equivalent to California Air
Resources Board (ARB) Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve an
85 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust
and 40 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOX) in
comparison to uncontrolled equipment.
• The project applicant shall submit a construction
operations plan prepared by the construction
contractor that outlines how the contractor will
achieve the measures outlined in this mitigation
measure. The plan shall be submitted to the Director
of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the
Director’s designee for review and approval prior to
the start of any construction activity. The plan shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
o List of activities and estimated timing;
o Equipment that would be used for each activity;
o Manufacturer’s specifications for each equipment
that provides the emissions level; or the
manufacturer’s specifications for devices that
would be added to each piece of equipment to
ensure the emissions level meet the thresholds in
the mitigation measure;
o Construction contractor’s approach for ensuring
that the measures listed are monitored;
o Construction contractor’s approach for remedying
any exceedance of the thresholds; and

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 4 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2: The project site has a high potential for unanticipated buried cultural resources to be impacted by project construction.

MM CUL-2a: Prior to the issuance of any demolition,
grading, or building permits (whichever occurs first), the project applicant shall conduct a Cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources Awareness Training for construction
personnel. The training shall be facilitated by a Secretary of the Interior-qualified Archaeologist in collaboration with a representative from a Native American Tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1.

The qualified Archaeologist shall implement the awareness training for all project staff and contractors who will be on- site during ground-disturbing activities. This training shall cover the significance of the sites, the importance of
respecting cultural resources, and the specific protocols to follow if artifacts or other items of cultural importance are found. Documentation (i.e., sign-in sheets) verifying that Cultural Sensitivity Training has been conducted shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee.

Provide evidence,
(which may include, but
is not limited to,
Training Sign-in Sheets)
that construction
personnel attended
Cultural Awareness
Training.

Prior to the issuance of
any demolition, grading,
or building permits
(whichever occurs first).

Director of
Planning,
Building, and
Code
Enforcement or
the Director’s
designee.

Review
documentation,
such as Training
Sign-in Sheets, that
a Cultural
Awareness
Training has been
conducted.

Prior to the issuance
of any demolition,
grading, or building
permits (whichever
occurs first).

MM CUL-2b: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits (whichever occurs first), a qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American
Provide a monitoring
plan for all earthmoving
activities.

Prior to the issuance of
any demolition, grading,
Director of
Planning, Building
and Code
Review and
approve the
monitoring plan.

Prior to the issuance
of any demolition,
grading, or building

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 5 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

Conduct construction
monitoring by a
qualified archaeologist,
in consultation with a
Native American
representative
registered with the
Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC) for the City of
San José.

Submit monitoring
report.
or building permits
(whichever occurs first)

During ground-disturbing
activities

30 days following
completion of ground-
disturbing construction
activities
Enforcement or
the Director’s
designee.

Review monitoring
report.
permits (whichever
occurs first).

During ground-
disturbing activities

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: The Project would generate 19.52 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita daily as estimated by the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool, exceeding the residential threshold of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita, meaning it would not comply with Criterion A of the Bay Area Air District’s 2022 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance thresholds.

Impact GHG-2: The Project would conflict with adopted reduction strategies including the State’s Scoping Plan, the Bay Area Air District’s Plan Bay Area, and the GHG Reduction Strategy (due to inconsistency with General Plan and significant VMT impact).

Impact GHG-CUM-1: The Project would have a cumulatively considerable significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with Criterion A of the Bay Area Air District’s 2022 GHG Significance thresholds or the State’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality. As the analysis considers global, Statewide, and regional GHG emissions, there is a potentially significant cumulative impact.

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 6 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: The project site may have pesticide contamination due to its previous dry farming use. Soils removed or disturbed during project construction would create a potentially significant impact from the pesticides in the soil if present.

HAZ-2: The project site may be contaminated with pesticides given its previous use for dry farming, meaning there could be a health risk for future residents.

HAZ-3: There is a school 0.06 mile from the project site and construction activity would be expected to involve the transport and use of hazardous materials.

MM HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits, the project applicant shall retain a licensed professional to prepare a Limited Phase II
Environmental Investigation that includes collecting and analyzing shallow soil samples in the grassy field and along structures to determine whether organochlorine pesticides and pesticide-bases metals, arsenic and lead from previous agricultural operations are present on-site at
concentrations above established Environmental Screening Levels. The results of soil sampling and testing shall be provided to the City’s Supervising Planner of the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department and the
Municipal Compliance Officer of the Environmental
Services Department for review.

If required, obtain
regulatory oversight.

Prepare and implement
Prior to issuance of any
demolition, grading,
and/or building permits
(whichever occurs first)

Supervising
Planner of the
Planning, Building
and Code
Enforcement
Department and
the Municipal
Compliance
Officer of the
Environmental
Services
Department
Review the Limited
Phase II
Environmental
Investigation
report.

Prior to issuance of
any demolition,
grading, and/or
building permits
(whichever occurs
earliest)

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 7 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

NOISE
IMPACT NOI-1: The project construction would last for more than 12 months and would require construction work on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., which would result in a potentially significant temporary construction noise impact.

MM NOI-1: Construction Noise Logistics Plan. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits (whichever comes first), the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction noise logistics plan that
specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration
minimization measures, posting and notification of
construction schedules, equipment to be used, and
designation of noise disturbance coordinator who would
respond to neighborhood complaints. The construction
noise logistics plan shall be implemented during
construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring
residents and other uses.

As part of the noise logistics plan, the project applicant shall include, but is not limited to, the following best management practices:

Develop and submit a
construction noise
logistics plan with noise
reducing measures

Implement construction
noise logistics plan
Prior to issuance of a
demolition, grading, or
building permit
(whichever occurs first)

During construction
Director of
Planning,
Building, and
Code
Enforcement or
the Director’s
designee
Review and
approval of
construction noise
logistics plan
Prior to issuance of
a demolition,
grading, or building
permit (whichever
occurs the earliest).

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 8 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Documentation of Compliance
[Project Applicant/Proponent Responsibility]
Documentation of Compliance
[Lead Agency Responsibility]
Method of Compliance
Or Mitigation Action
Timing of Compliance Oversight
Responsibility
Actions/Reports Monitoring Timing
or Schedule
• Pile Driving is prohibited.
• Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any
on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any
residential unit. Construction outside of these hours
may be approved through a development permit
based on a site-specific “construction noise mitigation plan” and a finding by the Director of Planning,
Building, and Code Enforcement that the construction
noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise
disturbance of affected residential uses.
• Construct minimum 8-foot high solid plywood fences
around ground level construction sites adjacent to
operational businesses, residences, or other noise-
sensitive land uses.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven
equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are
in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
• Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as
air compressors or portable power generators as far
as possible from sensitive receptors.
• Construct temporary noise barriers to screen
stationary noise generating equipment when located
near adjoining sensitive land uses.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary
noise sources where technology exists.

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 9 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

Conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site and
include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding
the construction schedule.

TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT TRANS-2: The Project would exceed the significant impact threshold of 11.39 daily VMT per capita. The project’s daily VMT, as estimated by the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool, is

19.52 per capita.

MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management
Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning,
Building, and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Directors’ designee a copy of the applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) or other evidence demonstrating Develop and submit a
TDM Plan for review
and approval

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Director of Public
Works or the
Director’s
designee.

Review and
approve TDM Plan
and confirm
required measures
are included in the
plan.

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 10 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

Provide a program that targets individual attitudes
and behavior toward travel and provides information
and tools for residents to analyze and alter their
travel behavior. All households (100 percent of
residents) are expected to enroll.
• On-site TDM Coordinator: Prior to issuance of any
building permits, the project applicant shall submit
to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement or the Directors’ designee a copy of the
applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions
(CC&Rs) or other evidence demonstrating that the
programmatic measures listed above will be
implemented by the homeowner’s association (HOA)
for the life of the project.

Submit TDM
Compliance Form for
review and approval

30 calendar days of the
18-month anniversary of
the building permit final
inspections, then annually
for 5 years, then every 3
years for the lifespan of
the project

Review and
approve TDM
Compliance Form

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 11 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

After the project is occupied, the HOA must verify that these programmatic measures continue to be
implemented for as long as the project remains occupied.

Every year, the HOA must submit a completed TDM
Compliance Form and associated administrative fees to the City Department of Transportation. A TDM Compliance
Form must include a summary of the following information about the project:
• Project Size: The number of for-sale/rental,
market-rate/affordable, on site/off-site units and
the number of bundled/unbundled/shared
parking spaces.
• Point of Contact: Provide the property address,
the name of the HOA, and the contact person’s
name and information
• Documentation of Existing Programmatic
Measures: Report all ongoing programmatic TDM
measure(s), proof of implementation (as
described for each applicable measure in
Appendix C to the City’s Transportation Analysis
Handbook), and any changes from the original
plan or past years.

The first submission of the TDM Compliance Form is due
within 30 calendar days of the 18-month anniversary of
the building permit final inspections. Subsequent annual

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 12 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

MITIGATIONS

If a TDM Compliance Form is not submitted by the
Submittal Date in any year in which a submittal is required under this condition, the HOA will incur a fee of $10,000, provided that the City has delivered written notice of non- compliance to the HOA at least 15 days prior to the fee becoming due. If the TDM Compliance Form is still not
submitted 90 days after the relevant Submittal Date, the HOA will incur an additional $5,000 fee, for a cumulative total of $15,000 for that submittal period. The same
penalties would apply if a submitted TDM compliance
Form includes evidence that implementation of the
programmatic measures is incomplete or has ceased.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TCR-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource because of the proximity to Canoas Creek and soil conditions on the site.

Impact TCR-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, because the project site has high buried site potential.

City of San José
Glider Residential Project
File No. H23-028, T23-022
and ER23-230

Page | 13 File No. H23-028, T23-022 and ER23-230

Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

Source: EIR, Glider Residential Project, City of San José, August 2026.

MITIGATIONS

San Jose City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

San Jose City Council
September 15, 2026