SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
1 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
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 APPROVING, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, A
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE
EXISTING APPROXIMATELY 9 .51-GROSS-ACRE LOT
SITUATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF COZY
DRIVE AND GLIDER DRIVE INTO 81 LOTS (80
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE COMMON LOT) ( 511 COZY
DRIVE) (APN 689-08-001)
FILE NO. T23-022
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 of the San José Municipal Code, on October 23, 2023, Kelley Rutchena of TTLC San Jose – Glider, LLC filed a Vesting Tentative Map application (File No. T23- 022) on behalf of the property owner, the Oak Grove School District (“Subdivider”), with the City of San José (“City”) to subdivide one approximately 9.51-gross-acre lot into up to 81 lots (80 residential lots, one common lot) on that certain real property situated in the PQP Public/Quasi-Public Zoning District and located at the northwes t corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive (5 11 Cozy Drive; APN 689-08-001) (“subject property”); and
WHEREAS, a legal description of the subject property is attached as Exhibit "A" and depicted in the parcel map attached as Exhibit “B,” which are incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on August 26, 2026, the Planning Commission considered public comments and all evidence and testimony received at the public hearing regarding the project and recommended that the City Council approve the project; and
WHEREAS, this City Council received and considered the reports and recommendations of the City’s Planning Commission and City’s Director of Planning, Building, and Code SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
2 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Enforcement and conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project, giving all persons full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and testimony; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, this City Council received in evidence a plan for the subject property entitled, “Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map TLC Glider School” dated and last revised February 2, 2026, said plan is on file in the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, is available for inspection, and is incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has heard and considered the testimony presented at the public hearing and has further considered written materials submitted on behalf of the project applicant, City staff, and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:
The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, and after considering evidence presented at the public hearing the City Council finds that the following are the relevant facts and findings regarding this project:
1. Site Description and Surrounding Uses. The subject property is an approximately
9.51-gross-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive (511 Cozy Drive, APN: 689- 08-001). This site is developed with the former Glider Elementary School, which currently includes the existing school facilities, associated play fields, trees and landscaping, and surface parking areas. The site is surrounded by detached single-family houses on all sides.
Existing vehicle access to the site is provided from three driveways along Cozy Drive and two driveways along Glider Drive. There is direct pedestrian access from sidewalks along both Cozy Drive and Glider Drive. The nearest transit access to the site is v ia VTA Route 66, which stops at the intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and Dunn Avenue, approximately 1,100 feet to the northeast of the subject site.
2. Project Description. The project consists of a Vesting Tentative Map to allow 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).
In conjunction with the Vesting Tentative Map, the project also includes a Site Development Permit (File No. H23 -028), filed 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-acre privately- SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
3 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
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).
3. Housing Accountability Act. 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 (Gov. 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 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).
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 March 7, 2025, the applicant informed the City that the project would proceed under the provisions of 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%.
Therefore, the project must be considered under the criteria of a Builder’s Remedy project under the definition in Section 65589.5(h)(11):
a. The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
4 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Analysis: The project is a housing development project that provides 13% of units for low -income households, which qualifies under this definition pursuant to Section 65589.5(h)(3)(c)(i)(III).
b. On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article.
Analysis: The project submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on June 2, 2023, prior to the City’s Housing Element being deemed in substantial compliance on January 29, 2024.
c. The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
(1) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities:
i. Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
Analysis: The allowable density for jurisdictions in a metropolitan county pursuant to Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv) is 30 dwelling units per acre.
Therefore, this section allows 45 dwelling units per acre. ii. Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater.
Analysis: The subject property does not otherwise allow housing, and therefore, no density is associated with this section.
iii. The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element.
Analysis: The subject property does not appear in the City’s Housing Element, and therefore, no density is associated with this section.
Analysis: Under this Section (1), the greatest applicable density for the subject property is 45 dwelling units per acre.
(2) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code; (II) a very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h) ; or (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC /HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
5 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Analysis: The subject property is within a high resource census tract of the 2025 Opportunity Map, and therefore, a 35 dwelling unit per acre bonus is allowed , in addition to the density allowed pursuant to section c(1)(i). d. Regarding minimum densities:
(1) On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (2) On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in s ubparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower.
Analysis: The subject property is not within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station. Additionally, the subject site does not have a minimum density requirement, as neither the General Plan designation nor zoning include such a requirement. Therefore, there is no minimum density requirement for this project under this section.
e. The project site does not abut a site where more than one- third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16.
Analysis: The subject property has not been used as a heavy industrial or Title V industrial use and does not abut any such site.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11), the maximum density for the project is 80 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 8.41 dwelling units per acre and qualifies under the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project in State law. Therefore, pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D), the project does not require approval of a general plan amendment or 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.
4. Envision San José 2040 General Plan Consistency.
The subject property is designated Public/Quasi -Public land use designation in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram. The Public/Quasi-Public land use designation does not allow for residential development until the project is supportive housing.
Analysis: While the project is found to be inconsistent with the General Plan designation and multiple General Plan policies, as the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65589.5(h)(11), the project is deemed consistent with the Gen eral Plan, including applicable policies, pursuant to Section SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
6 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), and shall not require a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i). Nevertheless, inconsistencies with the General Plan are documented below for the record.
The project is inconsistent with the following General Plan major strategies and policies:
Major Strategy #3 – Focused Growth: [The] Focused Growth strategy … strictly limits new residential development through neighborhood infill outside of these Growth Areas to preserve and enhance the quality of established neighborhoods, to reduce environmental and fiscal impacts, and to strengthen the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. Focusing new growth into the Growth Areas will help to protect the quality of existing neighborhoods, while also enabling the development of new Urban Village areas with a compact and dense form attractive to the City’s projected growing demographic groups that support walking, provide opportunities to incorporate retail and other services in a mixed-use format, and support transit use.
Analysis: This project is outside of an Urban Village and has a land use designation of Public/Quasi-Public in the General Plan’s Land Use/Transportation Diagram, which does not permit residential development unless the project is supportive housing.
Additionally, the project is in an immitigable Vehicle Miles Traveled ( “VMT”) area, which is by definition a car-dependent area, and the project is not a mixed-use, transit- supporting project.
Major Strategy #7 – Measurable Sustainability / Environmental Stewardship: As the City’s guide for growth and development, the General Plan is a unique tool to shape its growth, minimize its impacts on resource consumption, reduce its contribution to global warming, and to preserve and enhance its natural environment.
Analysis: This project is in an immitigable VMT area and has a significant unavoidable impact on both VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. The project results in additional resource consumption and contributes to additional greenhouse gas emissions, leading to global warming.
Land Use Policy LU -1.9: Preserve existing Public / Quasi -Public lands in order to maintain an inventory of sites suitable for Private Community Gathering Facilities, particularly within the Residential Neighborhoods, Urban Villages and commercial areas, and to reduce the potential conversion of employment lands to non- employment use.
Analysis: This project does not preserve existing PQP land within a residential neighborhood and converts potential employment lands to a non- employment (residential) use.
Housing Policy H-4.2: Minimize housing’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and locate housing, consistent with our City’s land use and transportation goals and policies, to reduce vehicle miles traveled and auto dependency.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
7 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Analysis: This project is located in an area with immitigable VMT with poor alternative transportation methods and therefore does not minimize its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
Vibrant Neighborhoods Policy VN-1.2: Maintain existing and develop new community services and gathering spaces that allow for increased social interaction of neighbors, (i.e., parks, community centers and gardens, libraries, schools, commercial areas, churches, and other gathering spaces).
Analysis: This project permanently ceases the use of an existing vacant public school facility.
Education Policy ES-1.10: Encourage and enable the use of available school facilities for child care, private community gathering facilities, public recreation facilities and other dual- and multi-use purposes.
Analysis: This project permanently ceases the use of an existing vacant public school facility.
5. Zoning Ordinance Consistency.
Analysis: As the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65895.5(h)(11), the project is deemed consistent with the zoning ordinance pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii). Nevertheless, conformance with the Zoning Code is included for the record below:
Land Use
The subject property is within the PQP Public/Quasi-Public Zoning District. However, pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1, as the subject property was located within the R -1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District at the time of the SB 330 Preliminary Application submittal, the project therefore vested and is considered to be within the R-1-8 Zoning District, which allows a single-family house development. Per Section 20.30.010.C.1 of the Zoning Code, the allowable density range for the R -1-8 Zoning District is one to eight dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The project proposes a residential density of approximately 8.41 DU/AC.
Development Regulations
Relevant development regulations for the R-1-8 Zoning District are within Table 20-60 of Section 20.30.200 of the Zoning Code, and listed below.
Development Standard Required (Minimum) Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 5,445 square feet 1,980 sf (smallest
proposed lot size)
Analysis: The subdivision does not meet the minimum lot size of the R -1-8 Zoning District. While the City may not deny the subject project for inconsistency with the zoning ordinance, the applicant has nevertheless requested a waiver under State Density Bonus Law to reduce the lot size.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
8 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
6. California Environmental Quality Act.
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 Draft EIR was prepared that provided responses to public comments submitted during the public circulation period and revisions to the text of the DEIR. The First Amendment together with the Draft EIR constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report ( “FEIR”) for the proposed project.
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 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 includes a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan to mitigate the VMT impact. The TDM Plan would consist of the project proponent implementing a comprehensive list of TDM measures aimed at reducing the project VMT impact to the extent possible, including a school pool program, a Safe Routes to School program, and a voluntary travel behavior change program.
Since the VMT impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the project proponent shall also be required to pay the VMT Impact Overriding Offset payment as calculated for the proposed 80 residential units. In lieu of paying the VMT Impact Overriding Offset payment, the project proponent may also elect to construct physical improvements at the Santa Teresa Boulevard and Snell Avenue intersection prior to issuance of building occupancy permits. The project proponent has elected not to implement physical transportation system improvements, including the removal of all four existing pork-chop islands to implement bulb-outs and Class IV raised bike lanes, SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
9 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
and signal improvements, and has instead agreed to pay the full VMT offset value of $4,055,796.
Development of the project would also result in additional resource consumption and would contribute to additional greenhouse gas emissions ( “GHG”), leading to global warming. The proposed project would conflict with several General Plan and Municipal Code policies and regulations aimed at improving air quality and transportation which would also result in co-benefits with reducing GHG emissions. The proposed land use and its associated GHG emissions were not envisioned in the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy ( “GHGRS”). The proposed project would result in higher emissions than the existing land use and is not consistent with the GHG emission projections in the GHGRS. Therefore, the project was evaluated against the design elements in Criterion A of the Bay Area Air Di strict’s (“Air District”) 2022 GHG Significance thresholds. The project would satisfy three of the four design elements as outlined in the Air District GHG threshold Criterion A, but since the proposed project is inconsistent with the VMT design element, the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to greenhouse gas emissions per Air District GHG threshold Criterion A.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted with findings that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region- wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects if an environmentally superior alternative is not chosen. .
Alternatives
The Draft EIR evaluated three selected project alternatives, the No Project, Reduced Density/Increased Park Acreage Alternative that would produce less residential units and a larger park, and the Reduced Trip Generation Alternative that would further reduce residential units on the subject property, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Alternatives that were considered but rejected include the Adaptive Reuse Alternative, Location Alternative and the Development Under Existing Designations Alternative.
The No Project Alternative would avoid all project impacts; however, CEQA Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that when the no- project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, another alternative shall be identified. The Reduced Trip Generation Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative beyond the no-project alternative because it would reduce the amount of ground disturbance, construction time and number of new residential units from the proposed project. The Reduced Density A lternative would still be required to implement all identified mitigation measures (except for the transportation mitigation measure) and Standard Permit Conditions identified for the proposed project. As a result, the impacts to air SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
10 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
quality, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level consistent with the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions an d transportation would be avoided under this alternative, as the residential unit count would be below the screening levels for City Council Policy 5- 1 and would be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
DEIR Circulation Comments
The City received 54 written comment letters during the public circulation period.
Comments were submitted by five agencies and organizations and 47 members of the public. The main concerns raised by commenters are as follows:
• Traffic Impacts
• 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.
DEIR Circulation Unnecessary
Staff responded to the comments and questions received during the public circulation period for the DEIR in the First Amendment. None of the comments raised represent new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). The recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but before certification. “Information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to a Draft EIR is not “significant” unless the Draft EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
The EIR concluded that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
11 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
from VMT. No other significant and unavoidable impacts would occur to resource areas under CEQA with implementation of identified mitigation measures. The project includes an MMRP to lessen the identified impacts in the following resource areas to a less than significant level: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The MMRP also identifies mitig ation measures for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and for Transportation to reduce impacts but not below less than significant levels. Therefore, the EIR that was prepared for the project is the correct clearance for the project under CEQA.
The Final EIR, including the DEIR, First Amendment to the DEIR, and other related environmental documents were posted to the City’s website on August 14, 2026, and all commenters were notified via email of the document’s availability. The DEIR and First Amendment are available for public review on the City’s website:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building- code-enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmental- review/active-eirs/glider-residential-project
7. Subdivision Ordinance Consistency. Vesting Tentative Maps must be consistent with Title 19 – Subdivisions of the San José Municipal Code. The information required by Section 19.12.030 is provided on the Vesting Tentative Map and consistent with the stated requirements. The project is analyz ed for consistency with key design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance below:
Section 19.36.170 – Except as lot areas or widths are set forth in other provisions of Title 19 or 20 of this Code, each lot shall contain a minimum area of not less than six thousand square feet each with an average width of not less than 55 feet.
Analysis: The subdivision proposes lot widths as small as 32 feet and lot area as low as 1,980 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver to these standards under State Density Bonus Law.
Section 19.36.190 – Except as otherwise provided in this Title 19, all lots shall have direct access to a public street.
Analysis: Each lot has direct access to a public street.
Section 19.36.200 – Each lot shall have frontage of not less than 55 feet on a street.
Analysis: The subdivision proposes lot frontages as low as 33 feet. The applicant has requested a waiver to these standards under State Density Bonus Law.
Section 19.36.230 – No lot shall have a greater depth than two and one-half times its average width.
Analysis: No lots are proposed with a greater depth than two and a half times the average width.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
12 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
8. State Density Bonus Law Findings. In accordance with Government Code Section 65915, the project includes an application under State Density Bonus Law. 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. However, the project includes a request for multiple waivers related to subdivision standards . For a full list of incentives/concessions and waivers requested under State Density Bonus Law, see the associated Site Development Permit Resolution (File No. H23-028). a. Waiver 1 – Minimum Lot Area: Section 20.30.200, Table 20-60 of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot area of 5,445 square feet. The subdivision proposes lot area as low as 1,980 square feet.
b. Waiver 2 – Lot Area and Width: Section 19.36.170 of the Subdivision Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet and a minimum average lot width of 55 feet. The subdivision proposes lot widths as small as 33 feet and lot area as low as 1,980 square feet.
c. Waiver 3 – Lot Frontage: Section 19.36.200 of the Subdivision Code requires a minimum lot frontage of 55 feet on a street. The subdivision proposes lot frontages as low as 33 feet.
Analysis: 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 feasible would be 76. Therefore, as the project consists of 80 units, adhering to the above development standards would result in a loss of four units, and the waivers may be granted.
9. Vesting Tentative Map Findings . In accordance with San José Municipal Code Sections 19.12.130 and 19.12.220 and California Government Code Section 66474, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the City of San José, in consideration of the proposed subdivision shown on the Vesting Tentative Map with the imposed conditions, shall deny approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, if the City Council makes any of the following findings:
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans as specified in Section 65451.
Analysis: As stated in the General Plan Consistency section above, the proposed map is found to be inconsistent with the General Plan designation and multiple General Plan policies due to the proposed residential use. However, as the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65895.5(h)(11), the project is deemed consistent with the General Plan, including applicable policies, pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), and shall not require a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i).
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
13 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
Analysis: As stated in Section 4, General Plan Consistency, above, the project is found to be inconsistent with the General Plan designation and multiple General Plan policies in that the improvement of the proposed subdivision is for a residential use.
However, as the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65895.5(h)(11), the project is deemed consistent with the General Plan, including applicable policies, pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), and shall not require a General Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i). c. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Analysis (c and d): As stated in Section 5, Zoning Ordinance Consistency, and Section 7, Subdivision Ordinance Consistency, above, the project is consistent with the land use requirements of the zoning ordinance and development regulations applicable to a Tentative Map, with the exception of the waivers granted under State Density Bonus Law. The site is therefore found to be physically suitable for the type of development.
Additionally, under Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11), a maximum density of 80 dwelling units per acre is allowed, whereas the project has a density of 8.41 dwelling units per acre, and the project is therefore found to be physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Therefore, inconsistency with these findings cannot be found.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Analysis: The project has been studied through the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Glider Residential Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The subject property is currently developed with a school, associated fields, and surface parking, is not located within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood plain, has not been found to contain sensitive habitat for fish and wildlife, and pursuant to the findings of the EIR, the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
Analysis: The design of the subdivision and the residential improvements have been analyzed in conjunction with the Subdivision Ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code, and the project is not found to be likely to cause serious public health problems, as the project is a residential project meeting the relevant aspects of the City’s Municipal Code, with the exception of waivers granted under State Density Bonus Law. This project will be required to adhere to standard environmental conditions, including for construction-related air quality, water quality, and noise. The project is 100% SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
14 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
residential, which is not considered a source of noise and odor, and the project must adhere to standard building and grading permit conditions, including drainage, erosion, and stormwater runoff.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Specifically, the subject property does not currently include such easements, and the proposed subdivision establishes two new public streets and easements for utilities within the site.
10. City Council Policy Consistency. In conformance with the City’s public outreach policy for Large and Significant Community Interest Proposals, on-site signs have been posted on the project frontages since February 14, 2024. A Joint Environmental Impact Report Scoping and Community Meeting was held on October 15, 2024, at the 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.
The project was noticed to
surrounding property owners and tenants at a radius of 1,000 feet. Staff has been available to answer any questions from the public.
In accordance with the findings set forth above, a Vesting Tentative Map to use the subject property for said purpose specified above and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth is hereby approved. This City Council expressly declares that it would not have granted this permit and determination except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which conditions shall run with the land and be binding upon the owner and all subsequent owners of the subject property, and all persons who use the subject property for the use permitted hereby.
APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Acceptance of Vesting Tentative Map. Per San José Municipal Code Section
19.12.230, should the Subdivider fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Vesting Tentative Map within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Subdivider shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Subdivider:
a. Acceptance of the Vesting Tentative Map by the Subdivider; and b. Agreement by the Subdivider to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Subdivider pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this permit or other approval and the provisions of Title 19 applicable to such Vesting Tentative Map.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
15 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
2. Map Expiration. This Tentative Map shall automatically expire 30 months from and after date of issuance thereof by the City Council, if within such time period, a Final Map has not been recorded, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of this Tentative Map. The date of issuance is the date this Tentative Map is approved by the City Council.
However, the Director may approve a Tentative Map Extension to extend the validity of this Tentative Map in accordance with Title 19, as may be amended. An extension of the approval of the Tentative Map shall not exceed two years by the City Council or the Director.
a. Phasing. The Vesting Tentative Map permits phasing. Pursuant to Government Code section 66452.6(a)(1), and due to the cost of the off-site improvements required by the project’s conditions of approval, the timely filing of a Final Map for any phase extends the lif e of this Vesting Tentative Map by 48 months, for total statutory extensions of not more than ten years from the date of issuance of this Vesting Tentative Map. An extension of this Vesting Tentative Map extends the expiration date of the related Site Development Permit, up to six years from the original approval date.
3. Conformance to Plans. The development of the site and all associated development and improvements shall conform to the approved Vesting Tentative Map plans entitled, “VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TTLC GLIDER SCHOOL” dated September 5, 2025, on file with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, as may be amended, and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and shall conform to the San José Building Code (San José Municipal Code, Title 24). The plans are referred to herein as the “approved plans” or the “Approved Plan Set.”
4. Compliance with Local, State, and Federal Laws. The subject use shall be conducted in full compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.
5. Improvements. Pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"), the Subdivider shall, before approval and recording of the Final Map, improve or agree to improve all land within the subdivision and all land outside, but appurtenant to, the Subdivision shown on the Tentative Map for public or private streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and easements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
6. Improvement Contract. In the event the Subdivider has not completed the improvements required for the proposed subdivision at the time the final map is presented for approval, Subdivider shall enter into an improvement contract pursuant to Agreement with the City of San José, in accordance with Section 19.32.130 of the San José Municipal Code and shall provide the bonds and insurance mentioned therein.
7. Public Use Easements. The Subdivider shall dedicate on the final map for public use easements for public utilities, streets, pedestrian ways, sanitary sewers, drainage, flood control channels, water systems and slope easements in and upon all areas within the SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
16 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
subdivision shown on the Tentative Map for the subdivision to be devoted to such purposes.
8. Distribution Facilities. The Subdivider shall, at no cost to the City, cause all new or replacement electricity distribution facilities (up to 40KV), telephone, community cable, and other distribution facilities located on the subject property to be placed underground, unless not allowed by relevant utility companies and approved by the Department of Public Works.
9. Homeowner’s Association. Prior to Final Map recordation, a Homeowner’s Association shall be established for maintenance of all common areas, including but not limited to private streets, pedestrian walkways, easements, landscaping (including landscaping in the public right -of-way that is not already in a maintenance district), driveways/courtyards, and any common open space areas. A copy of the Development Permit and/or Tentative Map Permit, the accompanying Approved Plans, any approved Amendments or Adjustments, and a complete set of approved building and all improvement plans shall be provided to the Homeowner’s Association by the Subdivider no later than 30 days upon completion of each construction phase.
10. Maintenance Agreement in Lieu of Homeowners Association. If the Subdivider elects a Maintenance Agreement to be established in lieu of a Homeowners Association for the maintenance of common improvements, including streets, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater improvements, said agreement shall address the adequate funding, provision, and maintenance of common improvements by the property owners, and shall include adequate provisions for enforceability during the life of the development and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final subdivision map.
11. No Tract Sales Office/Model Homes Approved. This Vesting Tentative Map does not include the approval of a tract sales office/model homes complex. Said use requires a Permit Adjustment approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.
12. Stormwater Stenciling. All storm drain inlets and catch basins shall be stenciled with the “NO DUMPING - FLOWS TO BAY,” applied to the top and/or face of the curb next to the storm drain inlet. The development maintenance entity and/or property owner shall ensure that all storm drain inlet markings located on privately-maintained streets within the property are present and maintained.
13. Conformance with Other Permits. The subject Vesting Tentative Map conforms to and complies in all respects with the Site Development Permit File No. H23-028 and as may be amended, on which such Vesting Tentative Map is based. Approval of said Vesting Tentative Map shall automatically expire with respect to any portion of the lands covered by such Vesting Tentative Map on which a Final Map or Tract Map has not yet been recorded if, prior to recordation of a Final Map or Tract Map thereon, the Site SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
17 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Development Permit for such lands automatically expires or for any reason ceases to be operative.
14. Final Map. No Final Map or Tract Map shall be approved by City Council unless and until the appeal period for the development permit, City File No. H23-028, has expired and all appeals have been exhausted.
15. Conveyance of Easements. Subdivider shall convey or cause to be conveyed to the City of San José, easements in and upon all areas as shown on the Tentative Map outside the boundaries of, but appurtenant to, the subdivision. Should a separate instrument be required for the conveyance of the easement(s), it shall be recorded prior to the recordation of the Parcel or Final Map. Such easements so conveyed shall be shown on the Parcel Map, together with reference to the Book and Page in the Official Recorder of Santa Clara County, where each instrument conveying such easements is recorded.
16. Multiple Final Maps. Multiple Final Maps may be filed for this subdivision if each and all of the following conditions are met with each Final Map:
a. All fees associated with development and a part of this approval shall be apportioned and paid for each portion of this subdivision for which a Final Map is being filed, including but not limited to Parkland Dedication, undergrounding of utilities, drainage, area and sewer treatment plan.
b. All public streets on which each Final Map has frontage shall be improved or bonded to be improved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. c. All grading, drainage, and easements for drainage, adequate to protect each lot for which a Final Map is requested, and surrounding parcels which could be impacted by such design or lack of design, shall be guaranteed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
d. Any and all off-site improvements necessary for mitigation of impacts brought about by this project shall be apportioned to the degree possible to guarantee adequate mitigation for each area for which a Final Map is being filed, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
e. For final maps that are phased, where the phasing is not specified, the Subdivider is required to process a Permit Amendment to specify the phases and phased improvements. All improvements must be in conformance with the associated development permit, as may be amended.
17. Development Rights – Vesting on Approval of Vesting Tentative Map. a. Per San José Municipal Code Section 19.13.070, the approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards described in Government Code Section 66474.2. However, if Section 66474.2 of the Government Code is repealed, the approval or conditional approval of a vesting SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
18 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
tentative map shall confer a vested right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved. b. Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, any permit, including a building permit, approval, extension, or entitlement may be made conditional or denied if any of the following are determined:
i. A failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. ii. The condition or denial is required, in order to comply with state or federal law. c. The rights referred to herein shall expire if a final map is not approved prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map as provided in Section 19.13.060. If the final map is approved, these rights shall last for the following periods of time:
i. An initial time period of one year. Where several final maps are recorded on various phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map, this one- year initial time period shall begin for each phase when the final map for that phase is recorded. All of said final maps or parcel maps must be recorded within the time period set forth in Section 19.13.060 or the vesting tentative map approval shall expire for those parcels for which final maps or parcel maps are not timely recorded.
ii. The initial time period set forth in c.i. shall be automatically extended by any time used for processing a complete application for a grading permit if such processing exceeds thirty days from the date a complete application is filed. iii. A Subdivider may apply to the director for a one-year extension at any time before the initial time period set forth in c.i expires. If the extension is denied, the subdivider may appeal that denial to the city council within fifteen (15) days. iv. If the Subdivider submits a complete application for a building permit during the periods of time specified in c.i. through c.iii., above, the rights referred to herein shall continue until the expiration of that permit, or any extension of that permit.
18. Sewage Treatment Demand. Pursuant to Chapter 15.12 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, acceptance of this Vesting Tentative Map by Subdivider shall constitute acknowledgement of receipt of notice by Subdivider that (1) no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of this Vesting Tentative Map when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand of the San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Facility will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility to treat such sewage adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the state of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region; (2) substantive conditions designed to decrease sanitary SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
19 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approval authority; (3) issuance of a Building Permit to implement this Vesting Tentative Map may be suspended, conditioned or denied where the City Manager makes a determination that such action is necessary to remain within the aggregate operational capacity of the sanitary sewer system available to the City of San José or to meet the discharge standards of the sanitary sewer system imposed on the City by the state of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region.
19. Housing Department Conditions Under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Builder’s Remedy Law. This project is subject to the Housing Department conditions as described in the Site Development Permit (File No. H23-028), as may be amended.
20. Public Works Clearance for Building Permit(s) or Map Approval: Prior to the approval of the Tract by the Director of Public Works, or the issuance of Building permits, whichever occurs first, the Subdivider will be required to have satisfied all of the Public Works conditions as described in the Site Development Permi t (File No.
H23-028), as may be amended.
21. Conformance to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This project shall conform to all applicable requirements of the MMRP approved for this development by City Council Resolution No.______.
22. Standard Environmental Conditions. This project is subject to the same Standard Environmental Conditions as described in the Site Development Permit (File No. H23- 028), as may be amended.
23. Revocation. This Vesting Tentative Map is subject to revocation , suspension, or modification for violation of any of its provisions or conditions.
In accordance with the findings set forth above, a Vesting Tentative Map Permit to use the subject property for said purpose specified above, subject to conditions, is hereby approved.
SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/03/2026
20 T-55005\2335064_2
Council Agenda: 09-15-2026
Item No.: 10.2(b)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
APPROVED and issued this _____ day of ______, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
__________________________________
MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
TONI J. TABER, MMC
City Clerk
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The time within which judicial review must be sought to review this decision is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Order Number: 0131-625268ala
Page Number: 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of San Jose , County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
OF THE SANTA TERESA RANCHO, AS SAID LOT 38 IS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED TO AND ACCOMPANYING THE REPORT OF THE REFEREES IN THE ACTION OF W. A. SENTER, ET AL, PLAINTIFFS, VS. BLANDA CASTRO DE BERNAL, ET AL, DEFENDANTS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, NUMBERED 2370, SAID STAKE BEING ALSO THE COMMON CORNER FOR LOTS 49 AND 50 OF
SAID PARTITION, SAID STAKE BEING ALSO IN THE CENTER OF A DRAINAGE CANAL KNOWN AS CANOAS CANAL;
THENCE, FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING
RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE (RADIAL
SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 262.00 FEET, A 1318 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT (RADIAL BEARING OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT
THROUGH LAST POINT NORTH
TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE, ALONG THE ARC OF A 470 FOOT RADIUS TANGENT
LEFT, THROUGH
THENCE SOU
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APN: 689-08-001
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Order Number: 0131-625268ala
Page Number: 8
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT--Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.