PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA:
8-26-26
ITEM: 5.a.
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Christopher Burton
SUBJECT: H23-028, T23-022, & ER23-230 DATE August 26, 2026 ______________
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10
Type of Permit Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map Demolition Six buildings associated with the former Glider Elementary School (approximately 56,644 square
feet in total)
Proposed Land Uses Residential
New Residential Units 80 units
New Non-Residential Square Footage N/A
Additional Policy Review Items Transportation Analysis (Policy 5-1) Tree Removals 48 trees (18 ordinance-size and 30 non-ordinance- size)
Project Planner Alec Atienza
CEQA Clearance Glider Residential Project Environmental Impact Report
CEQA Planner Bethelhem Telahun
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take all of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Glider Residential Project Environmental Impact Report and making certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
2. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one existing approximately 9.51-gross-acre lot situated at the northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive into 81 lots (80 residential lots and one common lot); and
3. Adopt a Resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Site Development Permit to allow the construction of 80 single-family houses (64 detached, 16 attached), an approximately
0.68-gross-acre privately-owned publicly accessible park, the demolition of six existing buildings associated with the former Glider Elementary School (totaling approximately 56,644 square feet), and the removal of 48 trees (18 ordinance-size and 30 non-ordinance- size), subject to State Density Bonus Law with an incentive/concession to eliminate the Transportation Demand Management Plan requirement, and waivers for reductions in minimum lot area and width, minimum lot frontage, front setback, side interior setback, side ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
corner setback, rear interior setback, and rear corner setback, and a request for extended construction hours on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on an approximately 9.51-gross- acre site on the northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Location Northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive (511 Cozy Drive)
Assessor Parcel No. 689-08-001
General Plan Public/Quasi-Public
Growth Area N/A
Zoning PQP Public/Quasi-Public
Historic Resource None
Annexation Date September 30, 1965 (Oak Grove No. 17)
Council District 10
Project Site Acreage 9.51 gross acres
Proposed Density 8.41 dwelling units per acre
PROJECT BACKGROUND
As shown on the attached Aerial Map (Exhibit A), the subject property is an approximately
9.51-gross-acre lot located at the northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive (511 Cozy Drive). This site is developed with the former Glider Elementary School, which currently includes the existing school facilities and associated play fields, landscaping, and parking areas. The site is surrounded by detached single-family houses on all sides.
On June 2, 2023, the applicant, TTLC San Jose - Glider, LLC, submitted a Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) Preliminary Application (File No. PRE23-080) under Section 65941.1(a) for the construction of an 80-unit single-family development with 20% of the units reserved for households earning up to 80% AMI. On October 23, 2023, the applicant submitted a formal development application for the subject project, within the 180-day deadline for formal submittal of a project application and with less than a 20% change to the number of units and square footage of the building in accordance with Section 65941.1(e)(1).
SURROUNDING USES
General Plan Zoning District Existing Use
North Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residence
Detached single-
family houses
East Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residence
Detached single-
family houses
South Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residence
Detached single-
family houses
West Residential Neighborhood R-1-8 Single-Family
Residence
Detached single-
family houses
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
Project Context – Builder’s Remedy
The subject project is a Builder’s Remedy project filed under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5). The Housing Accountability Act prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very-low, low-, or moderate-income housing or an emergency shelter unless one of six potential written findings are made (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)).
Section 65589.5(d)(5) authorizes jurisdictions to deny a qualifying project if both of the following criteria are satisfied: (1) the project is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan land use designation; and (2) the jurisdiction has a housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. The “Builder’s Remedy” refers to a penalty for jurisdictions that do not have a substantially compliant housing element, meaning such a jurisdiction may not disapprove a qualifying housing development project based upon inconsistency with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation.
On January 29, 2024, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) determined that the City’s Housing Element was in substantial compliance. Therefore, at the time of submittal of the applicant’s SB 330 Preliminary Application, the City did not have a substantially compliant Housing Element. On December 13, 2024, the applicant informed the City that the project would proceed under Assembly Bill 1893, which modified provisions of the Housing Accountability Act specific to Builder’s Remedy projects. Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(7)(A) allows the development proponent to choose which provisions of Section 65589.5 they prefer to be subject to – the Builder’s Remedy provisions as they were before AB 1893 was adopted or as modified by AB 1893. Accordingly, the applicant chose to change their affordable units reserved for households earning up to 80% AMI from 20% to 13%.
In short, the project qualifies for the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project under the definition in Section 65589.5(h)(11), which allows a maximum density of 80 dwelling units per acre on this site. The project density is 8.41 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D), the project does not require approval of a general plan amendment, rezoning, and shall be deemed consistent with applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, redevelopment plans, implementing instruments, or other similar provisions for all purposes.
However, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project found significant and unavoidable environmental impacts for the purposes of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. Specifically, the project cannot feasibly mitigate the impact to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Therefore, the project must demonstrate overriding benefits, which must be approved by the City Council. This is further discussed in the CEQA section below.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of a Vesting Tentative Map to allow the subdivision of one approximately
9.51-gross-acre lot situated at the northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive into 81 lots (80 residential lots, one common lot), and a Site Development Permit submitted under the Housing Accountability Act (“Builder’s Remedy”), to allow the construction of 80 single-family houses (64 detached, 16 attached), two new public streets, an approximately 0.68-gross-acre privately-owned publicly accessible park, the demolition of six existing buildings associated with former Glider Elementary School (totaling approximately 56,644 square feet), and the removal of 48 trees (18 ordinance-size and 30 non-ordinance-size).
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
The project includes 80 single-family houses, with 64 detached single-family houses and 16 attached single-family houses. There are four proposed plan types. The 16 attached single- family houses have approximately 1,233 square feet of living area, and consist of two stories of living space, an attached one-car garage, and a private backyard. The remaining 64 detached houses range in size from 1,896 square feet to 2,234 square feet. All detached houses are two stories, with three bedrooms, an attached two-car garage, and a private backyard. Lot sizes range between 1,980 to 7,603 square feet. A total of 11 units (13%) would be reserved for low- income households earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). The project would be served by two newly constructed public streets, which include curb, gutter, landscape strip and sidewalk. The project includes the construction of an approximately 0.68-gross-acre privately- owned publicly-accessible park that would be maintained by a newly formed Homeowner’s Association.
The project includes an application pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915) with a request for one incentive/concession to eliminate the zoning code requirement to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and waivers for reductions in minimum lot area and width, minimum lot frontage, front setback, side interior setback, side corner setback, rear interior setback, and rear corner setback.
The applicant has also requested extended construction hours, with the option to work on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
PROJECT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Conformance
As shown in the attached General Plan Map (Exhibit B), the project has a Public/Quasi-Public land use designation in the General Plan’s Land Use/Transportation Diagram. The project is not consistent with the Public/Quasi-Public designation, as this land use designation does not permit residential development unless the project is supportive housing. Additionally, the project is contrary to major strategies regarding Focused Growth and Measurable Sustainability, as well as policies regarding the preservation of Public/Quasi-Public lands, minimizing housing’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, maintaining community gathering spaces, and using existing school facilities for dual- and multi-use purposes.
However, as the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65589.5(h)(11), the project is deemed consistent with the General Plan, including applicable policies, pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), and is not required to apply for a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i).
Zoning Ordinance Conformance
While the project is currently located within the PQP Public/Quasi-Public Zoning District, the project site was located within the R-1-8 Single Residence Zoning District, as shown in the attached Zoning District Map (Exhibit C), at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application was submitted. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1, the project is vested and is considered to be within the R-1-8 Zoning District.
The project is consistent with the allowed land uses of the R-1-8 Zoning District, which allows single-family houses. The maximum allowed density for projects in the R-1-8 Zoning District, is eight dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The project is consistent with the maximum allowed height limit of 35 feet. The maximum height of the proposed houses does not exceed 26 feet, 7 inches. However, the project has requested waivers under the State Density Bonus Law to ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
reduce development standards for minimum lot size, front setback, side interior setback, side corner setback, rear interior setback, and rear corner setback. The project has also requested an incentive/concession to eliminate the requirement to implement a TDM Plan. The project is deemed consistent with the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii).
Subdivision Ordinance Consistency
The project is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, with the exception of waivers requested under the State Density Bonus Law for reductions in minimum lot area, width, and lot frontage. Per Chapter 19.36 of the Subdivision Code, all proposed lots must be at least 5,000 square feet, must have a minimum width of 55 feet, and must have at least 55 feet of frontage on a street. The project proposes lot sizes as small as 1,980 square feet, lot widths as low as 32 feet, and lot frontage as low as 36 feet.
State Density Bonus Law Requests
The project includes requests pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915. The project provides 11 units (13% of the project total) for low-income households earning up to 80% AMI. The project is not requesting a density bonus over the maximum allowable density for the subject site, which is 80 DU/AC under the Builder’s Remedy. The project includes incentives/concessions to eliminate the TDM Plan requirement, and waivers for reductions in minimum lot area and width, minimum lot frontage, front setback, side interior setback, side corner setback, rear interior setback, and rear corner setback. A draft TDM Plan was prepared to demonstrate the cost savings for granting an incentive/concession. Prior to the application of Builder’s Remedy, the maximum permitted residential density for the subject property is 8 DU/AC. The project proposes a residential density of 8.41 DU/AC. If the project were to adhere to the maximum residential density prior to the application of Builder’s Remedy and the applicable development standards of Title 19 (Subdivision Ordinance) and Title 20 (Zoning Ordinance), the maximum number of units allowed would be 76. Therefore, as the project consists of 80 units, adhering to the previously listed development standards would result in a loss of four units, and the waivers may be granted.
PERMIT FINDINGS SUMMARY
The project meets all the findings for the issuance of a Site Development Permit pursuant to Section 20.100.630 of the Zoning Code as analyzed in the attached Site Development Permit resolution and summarized above. Specifically, as a Builder’s Remedy project, the project has been deemed consistent with all applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements, redevelopment plans, implementing instruments, or other similar provisions for all purposes under Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D). Additionally, approval of the project will not be contrary to state or federal law, nor will the project result in a significant impact to the public health and safety in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5.
Additional required findings can also be made with regard to State Density Bonus Law, City Council Policy 5-1, demolition of existing structures, and tree removal for the Site Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map findings for the Vesting Tentative Map, as attached in their respective resolutions.
For City Council Policy 5-1 (Transportation Analysis), as the project is located within an area of immitigable Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita and therefore has significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA, the project must demonstrate that it is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, demonstrate overriding benefits to the City, and is ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
consistent with any area plans and policies. Due to the project being a Builder’s Remedy project, it is not subject to any area plans and deemed consistent with any plans and policies, including the General Plan, pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii). However, the project still must demonstrate overriding benefits for purposes of CEQA. Additional information regarding overriding benefits is provided in the CEQA section below.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The City of San José, as the lead agency for the proposed Project, prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with CEQA. The Glider Residential Project’s Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated for public review and comment for 45 days, from January 9 to February 23, 2026. A First Amendment to the DEIR was prepared that provided responses to public comments submitted during the public circulation period and revisions to the text of the DEIR.
The DEIR and First Amendment constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Project. The FEIR was posted online for public review on August 14, 2026.
Summary of Environmental Impacts Reduced to Less than Significant with Mitigation The DEIR identified potential environmental impacts to air quality, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. With implementation of the mitigation measures specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Project, these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. As part of the certification of the FEIR, the City Council will need to approve the associated MMRP for the Project.
Summary of Environmental Impacts Determined to be Significant and Unavoidable The DEIR found that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation due to the proposed project’s location in an immitigable VMT area, pursuant to City Council Policy 5-1.
City Council Policy 5-1
In 2013, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 743 (“SB 743”), which mandated a fundamental shift for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA from a Level of Service metric to a VMT metric. In alignment with SB 743, the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, the Climate Smart San José Plan, and the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines, the City Council adopted Council Policy 5-1 in 2018, requiring new development projects to evaluate VMT impacts under CEQA. The policy provides direction for those projects exceeding the VMT threshold to mitigate impacts to VMT using the San José VMT Evaluation Tool to the maximum extent feasible.
Council Policy 5-1 establishes:
• VMT as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts • A transportation evaluation framework for proposed developments, land use plans, and transportation projects in the City; and
• The requirement that projects conduct a Local Transportation Analysis to demonstrate conformance with multimodal transportation strategies, goals, and policies in the General Plan and address adverse effects to the transportation system.
If a project cannot fully mitigate its impacts on VMT, the project applicant may:
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
• Propose to modify the project such that the impacts on VMT can be mitigated to a less than significant level
• Relocate the project to a low VMT site; or
• Request the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant impact on VMT as part of an EIR certification.
Project VMT Analysis
City staff calculated the Project's unmitigated VMT is 19.52 vehicle miles traveled per capita.
Through feasible mitigation measures recommended by the Project's transportation consultant (detailed below), the Project can reduce that number to 17.04 VMT per capita. However, the City's residential VMT threshold is set at 11.39 VMT per capita, resulting in 5.65 VMT per capita that remains unmitigated.
The Project's transportation consultant, TJKM, recommended the following list of mitigation measures to reduce the Project VMT from 19.52 to 17.04 VMT per capita:
• Implementation of a TDM Plan, including
• a School Pool Program 100% resident participation,
• a Safe Routes to School program, and
• a Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
Council Policy 5-1 sets forth the value of Transportation System Improvements or impact “offset improvements” that can be included in a community benefit package for the City Council to consider overriding the significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. This value is calculated as follows for the Project:
• Unmitigated VMT per capita: 5.65
• Offset value per VMT not mitigated: $2,991 (as referenced in Council Policy 5-1, accounting for annual construction cost index adjustments) • Number of units: 80
• Average household size: 3 persons
• Offset value of Transportation System Improvements = 5.65 VMT per capita * $2,991 per VMT * 80 units * 3 persons per unit = $4,055,796
To address the unmitigated VMT impact, the Project may elect to implement the following Transportation System Improvement near the Project site at the Santa Teresa Boulevard and Snell Avenue intersection:
• Remove all four (4) existing pork-chop islands to implement bulb-outs and Class IV raised bike lanes.
• Signal modifications, including the replacement of existing signal poles and associated mast arms and streetlights, and signal improvements.
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
These improvements would enhance pedestrian connectivity, slow down all right-turn vehicle movements, shorten pedestrian crossing distances, and make pedestrians more visible to drivers. This would improve transportation safety in the Project neighborhood and contribute to the City's goals of reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, these improvements would meet the VMT offset value of $4,055,796. The applicant has not elected to implement these improvements; instead, the applicant has agreed to pay the full VMT offset value of $4,055,796, per the attached Community Benefits Summary (Exhibit J).
Additionally, the Project is also inconsistent with the Bay Area Air District’s 2022 GHG thresholds, and results in a significant and unavoidable impact for GHG. Therefore, the City Council must approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Transportation and GHG in order for the project to be approved.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must include findings that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. One of the goals of Council Policy 5-1 is to help applicants determine the specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project that will enable the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations
The overriding benefits considered for this project are as follows: the provision of diverse income housing options through the provision of 69 market-rate single-family houses and 11 affordable units (13% of the units in the project) restricted to households earning up to 80% AMI for a period of 55 years; payment of the VMT offset valuation, which would fund the construction of the aforementioned intersection improvements at Santa Teresa Boulevard and Snell Avenue, and implementation of a TDM Plan. It should be noted that the project is still required to implement a TDM Plan in order to mitigate VMT impacts to the maximum extent feasible, which is separate from the request for an incentive/concession to eliminate the zoning code requirement (i.e., achieving a 25-point threshold) for implementation of a TDM plan. The project would replace an underutilized school building with residential development designed to comply with the City’s Reach Code and Green Building Ordinance. The project also promotes the utilization of existing urban infrastructure and services.
Additional public improvements include the construction of two new public streets that would serve the project with ADA curb ramps, bulbouts, and street trees, and the construction of new 12-foot-wide sidewalks along Cozy Drive and Glider Drive. The project also includes the construction of a new 0.68-gross-acre privately-owned publicly-accessible park, which would be owned and maintained by the newly formed Homeowners Association. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is listed in the CEQA Resolution (Exhibit H).
Summary of Comments Received
The City received 54 written comment letters during the public circulation period. Comments were submitted by five agencies and organizations, which were Valley Water, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of San Juan Bautista, Kanyon Konsulting, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and the Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association.
The main concerns raised by commenters are as follows:
• Traffic Impacts
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
• Recreation and Open Space
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Increased Density and Visual Impacts
• Tree Removals and Replacements
• Emergency Evacuation and Response
The City responded to all comments received on the Draft EIR and incorporated them into the First Amendment to the Draft EIR. None of the comments received address an issue of adequacy of the Draft EIR and no new mitigation measures are required. EIR text revisions were included in the First Amendment to address clarifications to text of the Draft EIR and other suggested text revisions from commenters.
The First Amendment, taken together with the Draft SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) constitutes the Final EIR. The Draft EIR and First Amendment to the Draft EIR are available for review on the project page on the City’s Active EIR website at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code- enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmental-review/active-eirs/glider- residential-project. A copy of the signed MMRP is attached to the proposed CEQA resolution (Exhibit H).
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff followed City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy, for Large and Significant Community Interest Proposals, in order to inform the public of the project. On-site signs have been posted on the project frontages since February 14, 2024. A legal notice of the public hearing was distributed as appropriate to the owners and tenants of all properties located within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site and e-mailed to the interested parties list. The hearing agenda and staff report were posted on the City website, and staff has been available to respond to questions from the public.
A Joint Environmental Impact Report Scoping and Community Meeting was held on October 15, 2024, at Santa Teresa Library. Community concerns generally focused on traffic impacts of the new project, parking, loss of public land, project density, building height and setbacks, privacy concerns, strain on public utilities, lack of available public transit, lack of available open space, impacts to biological resources, impacts to air quality, light and air impacts, construction impacts, and increased crime. Public comments received prior to the posting of this staff report are attached (Exhibit I).
Project Manager: Alec Atienza
Approved by: /s/ Manira Sandhir, Deputy Director for Christopher Burton, Planning, Director
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
,
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map, Aerial (page 11)
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Designation Map (page 12) Exhibit C: Zoning District Map (at time of SB 330 Preliminary Application) (page 13) Exhibit D: Vesting Tentative Map T23-022 Resolution
Exhibit E: Site Development Permit H23-028 Resolution
Exhibit F: Vesting Tentative Map T23-022 Plan Set
Exhibit G: Site Development Permit H23-028 Plan Set
Exhibit H: Glider Residential Project Environmental Impact Report Resolution Exhibit I: Public Correspondence
Exhibit J: Applicant Community Benefits Summary
Public Comments received after August 19, 2026
Owner Applicant
Oak Grove School District
6578 Santa Teresa Boulevard
San Jose, CA 95119
TTLC San Jose – Glider LLC (c/o
Kelley Rutchena)
12647 Alcosta Boulevard
San Ramon, CA 94583
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
Exhibit A – Aerial Map
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
Exhibit B – General Plan Map
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026
File No. H23-028, T23-022, and ER23-230
Exhibit C – Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT: Planning Commission Staff Report
August 26, 2026