Letters from the Public - 1 of 3 — San Jose City Council, September 15, 2026

Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association
P O Box 53432 San Jose, CA 95153
www.STFNA.org
Rick Mandel
President
John Hesler
Vice President/
Treasurer
Lynne Paulson
Recording
Secretary
Jon Reinke
Secretary/
Webmaster
Dave Van Etten
Director
Denelle Fedor
Director

Via E-Mail: [email protected]
Planning Commission
Mayor & City Council
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, California 95113
Subject: Glider Residential Project (H23-028, T23-022, ER23-230) Dear Mayor Mahan, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners The Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association (STFNA) is submitting the following comments on the Glider Residential Project, which is located within our boundaries.

VMT Oﬀset Override Fee
The Final EIR states that the developer will pay a VMT oﬀset override fee of approximately $4,055,796. However, the Final EIR does not state how/where those monies will be used. Since the neighborhood will bear the effects of excess VMT, we request that the offset fee be used to pay for neighborhood traffic calming improvements (e.g., speed humps, electronic pedestrian crossing lights, traffic islands, etc.). We recommend that representatives of the residents living around the Glider site be included in the decision-making process for the improvements to be funded.

Support for Alternative 2
In our comments on the Draft EIR, we recommended that the City consider Alternative 2 (Reduced Density/Increased Park Acreage), providing five specific reasons: (1) preservation of two of three existing recreational acres, (2) fewer units (63) than allowed under existing R-1-8 zoning (76), (3) density closer to surrounding neighborhood, (4) incremental traffic reduction, (5) fewer trees removed, and (6) satisfaction of RHNA objectives. We stated this would be "a reasonable compromise" even though we prefer the No Project Alternative.

August 22, 2026

Glider Neighborhood Associa1on Response to Glider Residen1al Project Final EIR (SCH# 2024091026)
San Jose Planning Dept. FILE NOS: H23-028

Overview
This cri(que evaluates FirstCarbon Solu(ons' responses to Comment Le:er G (comments G.1 through G.11) from the Glider Neighborhood Associa(on, found in Sec(on 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Glider Residen(al Project,
City of San José. The analysis is framed against the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, applicable case law, and generally accepted planning prac(ce.

Bo*om-Line Conclusion
FirstCarbon Solu(ons' responses to Le:er G are par(ally adequate on certain legal framings but are characterized by a pervasive pa:ern of deﬂec(on rather than engagement. The responses rely almost exclusively on cross-references to Topical Responses in Sec(on 2, employ repe((ve boilerplate dismissals, and in several instances fail to answer the speciﬁc ques(ons asked. At least one response (G.9) misquotes the commenter's original language, while others (G.1, G.8) concede factual problems without fully correc(ng them. Several responses raise more ques(ons than they answer, par(cularly regarding the enforceability and empirical basis of the project's Transporta(on Demand Management (TDM) mi(ga(on. Supplemental responses and errata correc(ons beyond those already provided are warranted.

Standard of Review
CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15088 requires the lead agency to evaluate comments on the Dra EIR and prepare wri:en responses. The response must describe the disposi(on of signiﬁcant environmental issues raised (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). Courts have interpreted this obliga(on to require "good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments," not merely conclusory statements of disagreement (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Commi5ee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117-1118). Under Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, an EIR must disclose the "analy(c route" between facts and conclusions — bare conclusions unsupported by evidence or reasoning are inadequate.

Generally accepted planning prac(ce further requires that responses be speciﬁc to the comment, accurately represent the commenter's statements, provide substan(al evidence where factual asser(ons are made, and dis(nguish between citywide standards and localized or neighborhood-level eﬀects where the comment speciﬁcally requests the la:er.

Cross-Cu:ng Cri<ques

1. Over-Reliance on Topical Response Cross-References
Of the eleven responses to Le:er G, ten direct the reader to one or more Topical Responses in Sec(on 2 rather than substan(vely addressing the comment in place. While CEQA permits consolidated responses to similar comments (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(d)), the topical response mechanism should supplement, not replace, a meaningful response that engages with the speciﬁc points raised by each commenter. The pa:ern here — a brief paraphrase of the comment followed by "Please refer to Topical Response X" — falls short of the "good faith, reasoned analysis" standard, par(cularly where the commenter raises project-speciﬁc or neighborhood- speciﬁc concerns that the generic topical responses do not address.

2. Boilerplate Dismissive Language
Nearly every response to Le:er G contains iden(cal or near-iden(cal language: "This comment is included in the administra(ve record and will be provided to the decision-makers for review and considera(on. The comment did not provide new, substan(al evidence with respect to the disposi(on of signiﬁcant environmental impacts evaluated in the Dra EIR. Therefore, no further analysis is required." This formulaic dismissal is applied even to comments that raise substan(ve legal arguments (e.g., G.1's "reasonably foreseeable" argument under CEQA, G.3's enforceability challenge under CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15126.4).

The repe((on suggests a template-driven approach rather than individualized evalua(on, which is inconsistent with the obliga(on to provide reasoned analysis.

3. Conﬂa<on of En<tlement Status with CEQA Disclosure Du<es Several responses (par(cularly G.2) invoke the project's "Builder's Remedy" status under Government Code Sec(on 65589.5(h)(11) to assert that the project "shall, as a ma:er of State law, be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with all applicable plans, programs, policies, ordinances, standards, requirements." While the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) may constrain a lead agency's ability to deny or condi(on certain qualifying housing projects, Builder's Remedy status does not excuse the agency from CEQA's separate informa(onal duty to disclose physical environmental eﬀects. CEQA's disclosure requirements operate independently of en(tlement and consistency determina(ons. An EIR should evaluate whether a project's physical eﬀects are signiﬁcant, regardless of whether the project is deemed consistent with General Plan policies by opera(on of law. Conﬂa(ng these two frameworks is a recurring analy(cal error.

4. Failure to Dis<nguish Citywide Data from Neighborhood-Level Analysis Mul(ple comments (G.9, G.10) ask speciﬁcally about condi(ons in the Glider neighborhood or the project's localized eﬀects on recrea(onal resources. The responses and their referenced topical responses provide only citywide parkland ra(os (e.g., 3.2 acres per 1,000 residents citywide). This fails to respond to the speciﬁc ques(ons asked.

Comment-by-Comment Analysis
Response to G.1: ADUs and Lot Splits
Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION requests analysis of reasonably foreseeable Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) and by-right lot splits, ci(ng that page 1-4 of the DEIR cross-references Sec(on

4.2.7 for this analysis, but no such analysis exists. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION argues these addi(onal units are "reasonably foreseeable" under recent State and City housing legisla(on and would have direct traﬃc, air quality, energy, urban services, and u(li(es impacts that CEQA requires be disclosed.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response L, which argues that ADUs are ministerial, exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Sec(on 15268, and are "not part of the project descrip(on." The response concludes that "no new substan(al evidence" was provided and "no revisions to the Dra EIR are necessary." Cri2que:

Lot splits are not addressed. The comment explicitly raises both ADUs and "future lot splits that will occur 'by right' on the project site." The response and Topical Response L address only ADUs. Senate Bill 9 (Government Code Sec(ons 66411.7 and 65852.21) authorizes urban lot splits and two-unit residen(al development by right in single-family zones. The response does not explain why lot splits are not reasonably foreseeable, not physically feasible on this site, legally inapplicable, or otherwise excluded from the cumula(ve or indirect-eﬀects analysis. This is a material omission — the response fails to address a signiﬁcant por(on of the comment.
"Reasonably foreseeable" argument not engaged. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION explicitly argues that future ADUs and lot splits are "reasonably foreseeable" indirect eﬀects of the project. CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15064(d) requires evalua(on of direct and indirect physical changes. CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15145 states that if a par(cular impact is too specula(ve for evalua(on, the EIR should note this and explain why evalua(on is not possible. Topical Response L does not invoke Sec(on 15145 or explain why future ADU/lot-split development is too specula(ve to evaluate; instead, it argues the units are simply "not part of the project." This is circular: the commenter's point is that reasonably foreseeable indirect eﬀects should be analyzed even if they are not part of the project descrip(on.

CEQA Guidelines Sec2on 15130 requires evalua(on of cumula(ve impacts when they are cumula(vely considerable. The dismissal of ADUs as "ministerial" and therefore exempt does not address whether their cumula(ve contribu(on to traﬃc, air quality, and u(lity demand in the project area should be acknowledged in the cumula(ve impacts analysis.

Cross-reference error acknowledged but inadequately remedied. The commenter notes that page 1-4 of the DEIR states the ADU issue is addressed in Sec(on 4.2.7, but no such analysis exists. The response does not directly acknowledge this cross-reference error or explain how it was corrected, which is a basic responsiveness failure.

Adequate response would include: A separate discussion of lot splits under SB 9, an explana(on under CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15145 of why future ADU and lot-split development is or is not reasonably foreseeable on this speciﬁc site, and correc(on of the DEIR crossreference error on page 1-4.

Response to G.2: Shade and Shadow Analysis
Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION repeats a prior request (made in its NOP comment le:er) for a shade and shadow analysis of the new residences' impacts on adjacent homes. The commenter notes that page 1-4 of the DEIR states this issue is addressed in Sec(on 3.8, but "there is no such analysis nor is there any explana(on as to why it was not undertaken."

Response Summary: FirstCarbon argues CEQA requires evalua(on of physical eﬀects on the environment, "not changes in private views, access to light, or shading of private property, unless such changes aﬀect a recognized environmental resource or City threshold." It defers to Topical Response I, which acknowledges the City's General Plan contains shade policies (CD-4.5 and CD-7.8) but argues they do not apply because the site is not in a Growth Area or Urban Village. The response then invokes Builder's Remedy status to deem the project consistent with all General Plan policies "as a ma:er of State law." Cri2que:

Mischaracterizes the CEQA standard. The response states that CEQA does not require shade analysis "unless such changes aﬀect a recognized environmental resource or City threshold." This is an oversimpliﬁca(on. While it is true that shading of private property is generally not a CEQA impact in the absence of a speciﬁc threshold, the commenter's point is that the City's own General Plan policies establish relevant standards. The response concedes these policies exist but then sidesteps them on jurisdic(onal grounds.

Builder's Remedy argument is overbroad. Using Builder's Remedy status under Government Code Sec(on 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) to deem the project consistent with "all of the City's General Plan policies, which includes impacts related to shade and parkland provisions" is an extraordinary asser(on. The HAA limits a locality's ability to deny qualifying housing developments, but it does not transform a project's physical eﬀects into non-impacts for CEQA purposes. The EIR should s(ll disclose and analyze shading eﬀects as physical environmental condi(ons, even if the legal conclusion is that the project cannot be denied on consistency grounds. CEQA's informa(onal purpose is separate from the en(tlement ques(on.

Cross-reference correc2on is noted. The response acknowledges the DEIR's cross-reference to Sec(on 3.8 (Recrea(on) should have been to Sec(on 3.6 (Land Use and Planning), and the Errata (Sec(on 4) corrects this. However, the correc(on of a cross-reference does not cure the underlying absence of analysis. The commenter asked for the analysis itself, not just a corrected cita(on.

Acknowledge and explain the NOP request. The commenter notes this request was previously made during the NOP comment period. The response does not explain why the NOP comment was not carried forward into the DEIR scope, which is a standard planningprac(ce expecta(on when a lead agency receives scoping comments.

Adequate response would include: A brief shade/shadow analysis or, alterna(vely, a clear explana(on under CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15145 of why such analysis is not required, ci(ng the speciﬁc thresholds and policies.

It should not rely solely on Builder's Remedy status to waive the analy(cal requirement.

Response to G.3: TDM Enforceability and Par<cipa<on Assump<ons Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION challenges the TDM program's stated 100% par(cipa(on rates in voluntary programs (school pool and travel behavior change), requests suppor(ng data, and raises the CEQA requirement that mi(ga(on measures be "fully enforceable through legally binding instruments." The commenter asks how voluntary programs will be enforced.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response E, which discusses the TDM Plan's enforceability through CC&Rs and annual monitoring.

Cri2que:

The core contradic2on is not addressed. The commenter iden(ﬁes a fundamental logical problem: the TDM measures are described as "voluntary," yet the VMT reduc(on calcula(ons assume 100% par(cipa(on. A 100% par(cipa(on rate in a voluntary program is inherently contradictory. The response and Topical Response E do not reconcile this. The Errata (Sec(on 4, pages 4-3 through 4-5) compounds the problem by sta(ng "It is expected that at least 100 percent of residents will par(cipate in the school pool program." The phrase "at least 100 percent" is logically impossible — par(cipa(on cannot exceed 100% of residents. This is not a substan(ve evidence basis for a VMT reduc(on credit; it is a mathema(cal impossibility.
"100 percent of residents" is implausible for a school pool program. Not all households have school-age children. Assuming 100% of all residents will par(cipate in a school pool program ignores this basic demographic reality. The VMT Evalua(on Tool credits assigned for this measure rest on an unsupportable assump(on.

Enforceability ques2on par2ally answered. Topical Response E does describe the CC&R mechanism and the penalty structure ($10,000 ini(al fee, $5,000 addi(onal a er 90 days).

However, CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15126.4(a)(2) requires that mi(ga(on measures be "fully enforceable through permit condi(ons, agreements, or other legally binding instruments." The response does not explain whether the CC&Rs would be legally enforceable by the City (as opposed to being private contractual obliga(ons between the HOA and its members), or whether the City has the legal authority to compel compliance if the HOA fails to enforce the TDM measures. The enforcement chain — City to HOA to individual residents — introduces poten(al points of failure that are not addressed.

Adequate response would include: A realis(c par(cipa(on assump(on grounded in empirical data, an explana(on of the legal mechanism by which the City can enforce TDM compliance against individual residents (not just the HOA), and correc(on of the "at least 100 percent" language.

Response to G.4: TDM Eﬀec<veness in Low-Transit Areas
Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION requests empirical evidence suppor(ng TDM program eﬀec(veness "in areas of San Jose where transit service is minimal," no(ng that park-and-ride lots at light rail sta(ons are "mostly empty."
Response Summary: FirstCarbon points to VTA bus Routes 66, 68, and Express 102 within 0.5 miles of the project site, with stops approximately 1,100 feet north on Santa Teresa Boulevard. It defers to Topical Response E, which discusses the City's VMT Evalua(on Tool.

Cri2que:

Does not provide the requested empirical evidence. The commenter speciﬁcally asked for "data that supports the eﬀec(veness of TDM programs in areas of San José where transit service is minimal." The response iden(ﬁes nearby bus routes but does not provide any ridership data, TDM eﬀec(veness studies, or evidence that TDM programs have achieved meaningful VMT reduc(ons in comparable low-transit areas of San José. Poin(ng to the existence of bus routes is not the same as demonstra(ng TDM eﬀec(veness.

The response is par2ally self-defea2ng. Topical Response E acknowledges that even with all TDM measures and the VMT oﬀset payment, the project's VMT would remain at 17.04 per capita — well above

the 11.39 threshold — and VMT impacts would remain "signiﬁcant and unavoidable." This concession actually supports GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION's underlying concern that the TDM program will not meaningfully reduce VMT in this transit-poor loca(on. The response does not acknowledge this tension.

Park-and-ride observa2on not addressed. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION's speciﬁc factual observa(on about empty park-and-ride lots at light rail sta(ons is not engaged with at all.

Adequate response would include: TDM eﬀec(veness data from comparable San José projects or peer- reviewed studies, VTA ridership data for the cited routes, and a candid acknowledgment of the limita(ons of TDM programs in low-transit environments.

Response to G.5: VMT Oﬀset Fee Amount and Use
Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION requests the approximate dollar amount of the VMT oﬀset override fee and requests that the fee be used for neighborhood traﬃc calming improvements.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response E, which provides the fee calcula(on ($2,991 per unmi(gated VMT per resident, totaling approximately $4,055,796 based on the ﬁnal pages of Topical Response E).

Cri2que:

Fee amount provided. Topical Response E does provide the dollar amount, which par(ally answers the ques(on. However, the speciﬁc dollar ﬁgure does not appear in the direct response to G.5 — the reader must locate it in Topical Response E.

Traﬃc calming request not substan2vely addressed. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION speciﬁcally requests that the oﬀset fee be directed to neighborhood traﬃc calming improvements (speed humps, electronic pedestrian crossing lights, traﬃc islands). The response does not address this request. Topical Response E states the funds would be used for "Transporta(on System Improvements in the surrounding area" but does not iden(fy whether neighborhood traﬃc calming qualiﬁes or whether the City will commit to such improvements. This is a failure to respond to a speciﬁc request.

Adequate response would include: The dollar ﬁgure stated directly in the response to G.5, and a substan(ve response to the traﬃc calming request — either commisng to neighborhood improvements or explaining why the fee cannot be earmarked for that purpose.

Response to G.6: TDM Monitoring Dura<on and Cost Responsibility Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION asks whether the annual monitoring requirement con(nues "in perpetuity" and who will be legally responsible for the cost of preparing the annual report.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response E, which states the HOA would incur the cost for annual monitoring reports "in perpetuity."
Cri2que:

Par2ally answered but imprecise. Topical Response E states the HOA "must verify that the programma(c measures con(nue to be implemented for as long as the project remains occupied" and describes a monitoring schedule that shi s from annual to every three years a er ﬁve consecu(ve years of compliance.

However, the response to G.6 says monitoring con(nues "in perpetuity," while Topical Response E describes a schedule that relaxes over (me. These are not fully consistent. The "in perpetuity" characteriza(on in the direct response is less precise than the schedule described in the topical response.

Enforcement against a dissolved HOA. If the HOA dissolves, becomes insolvent, or transfers management to a third party, the response does not explain who bears the monitoring and enforcement obliga(on. This is a prac(cal concern for long-term mi(ga(on enforceability under CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15097.

Adequate response would include: A clear statement of the monitoring schedule (annual ini(ally, then triennial a er ﬁve years of compliance), and an explana(on of the con(ngency if the HOA ceases to exist or cannot fulﬁll its obliga(ons.

Response to G.7: Trip Cap Penal<es and Collec<on Mechanisms Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION requests details on the "addi(onal penal(es" referenced on DEIR page 3.9-16, including the legal mechanism for collec(ng penal(es a er residen(al units are occupied, and requests that penal(es be used for neighborhood traﬃc calming.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response E, which describes penal(es ($10,000 ini(al, addi(onal $5,000 a er 90 days) and states the City would be responsible for collec(ng the fees.

Cri2que:

Penalty details provided but collec2on mechanism unclear. Topical Response E provides the dollar amounts but does not clearly describe the legal mechanism by which the City would collect penal(es from the HOA. Would these be assessed as liens? Would they be collected through the City's code enforcement process? Would they be a condi(on of ongoing permits? The response leaves the enforcement mechanism unspeciﬁed.

Use of penal2es for traﬃc calming not addressed. As with G.5, GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION's speciﬁc request that penalty funds be used for neighborhood traﬃc calming improvements is not substan(vely addressed. Topical Response E states penal(es relate to "adding addi(onal TDM measures or paying equivalence fees" but does not specify whether the fees would fund neighborhood improvements.

Technical error: "ADT cap" misnomer. The Errata version of MM TRANS-1 refers to an "Average Daily Traﬃc (ADT) cap of 50 AM peak-hour trips and 65 PM peak-hour trips." ADT refers to average daily traﬃc — a 24-hour measure — not peak-hour trips. The correct term would be "peak-hour trip cap." This technical imprecision in a mi(ga(on measure undermines conﬁdence in the transporta(on analysis.

Adequate response would include: The penalty amounts stated directly in the response, the speciﬁc legal collec(on mechanism, and a substan(ve response to the traﬃc calming request.

Response to G.8: Century Oaks Park Characteriza<on
Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION states that Century Oaks Park, listed in DEIR Table

3.8-1 as having "trails and picnic areas," is actually "a series of disjointed City-owned parcels on steep hillsides with no developed facili(es or trails" and should not be counted as a nearby recrea(onal facility.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon states the City iden(ﬁes Century Oaks Park as a park facility and it is on the City's Parks and Trails Map. It acknowledges "No oﬃcial trails within Century Oaks Park were iden(ﬁed by the City" and refers to the Errata for "removal of the men(on of trails." It argues the park is iden(ﬁed "solely to provide context regarding exis(ng parks and recrea(onal facili(es in the vicinity" and that "neither the analysis nor conclusion in the Dra EIR relies on" the park's ameni(es.

Cri2que:

Par2al concession but incomplete correc2on. The response concedes no oﬃcial trails exist and the Errata removes the trails men(on. However, the Errata table (Sec(on 4, page 4-12) for Century Oaks Park s(ll lists "Picnic Areas" as an amenity. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION's comment states there are "no developed facili(es or trails." If "picnic areas" also do not exist, this remains a factual inaccuracy. The response does not address whether picnic areas actually exist at the site.

Internally contradictory. The response says "No revisions to the Dra EIR are required" in response to this comment, but simultaneously refers to the Errata for the removal of the trails men(on. If no revisions are required, why was a revision made? This contradic(on undermines the response's credibility. "Context" argument is weak. The response argues the park is listed "solely to provide context" and that "neither the analysis nor conclusion" relies on it. But if the park's ameni(es are inaccurately described, the "context" itself is misleading. Accurate descrip(on of exis(ng condi(ons is a fundamental CEQA requirement (CEQA Guidelines § 15125). Lis(ng non-existent trails and picnic areas in the environmental sesng sec(on is a factual error regardless of whether the analysis "relies on" them.

Adequate response would include: Veriﬁca(on of whether picnic areas actually exist at Century Oaks Park, correc(on of any inaccurate amenity descrip(ons, and removal of the contradictory "no revisions are required" language.

Response to G.9: Parkland Goal for the Glider Neighborhood Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION quotes the City's Greenprint (now Ac(vateSJ) goal of "3.5 acres per 1,000 popula(on of neighborhood/community serving parkland and provide equal access within a ¾-mile radius." GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION requests: (1) whether this goal is currently met for the Glider neighborhood under exis(ng condi(ons, (2) the methodology used to calculate it, and (3) how the project will aﬀect achievement of that goal.

Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response C, which provides citywide parkland data (3.2 acres per 1,000 residents citywide, below the 3.5-acre goal) and discusses the Park Dedica(on Ordinance (PDO) and Park Impact Ordinance (PIO) compliance mechanism.

Cri2que:

Factual misquota2on of the commenter. The commenter quotes a "¾-mile radius" access goal. The response to G.9 paraphrases this as a "quarter-mile radius." This is a factual error that changes the scope of the analysis requested — a ¾-mile service radius covers a signiﬁcantly larger area (approximately 1.77 square miles) than a quarter-mile radius (approximately 0.20 square miles). This misquota(on undermines the precision of the response.

Neighborhood-speciﬁc data not provided. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION speciﬁcally asked for the parkland ra(o for the "Glider neighborhood." Topical Response C provides only citywide data (3.2 acres per 1,000 residents). The response does not provide a neighborhood-level or service-arealevel calcula(on. The dis(nc(on ma:ers because the citywide ra(o may mask localized deﬁcits — the Glider neighborhood could have far less parkland per 1,000 residents than the citywide average.

Methodology not provided. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION explicitly requested "the methodology used to calculate" the parkland ra(o. Neither the response nor Topical Response C provides the methodology (e.g., what counts as "neighborhood/community serving parkland," what popula(on denominator is used, how the service radius is measured). This is a direct failure to answer the ques(on asked.

Impact on goal achievement not discussed. GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION asked how the project will aﬀect achievement of the 3.5-acre goal. The response discusses PDO/PIO compliance but does not analyze whether the project moves the neighborhood or the city closer to or further from the 3.5-acre goal.

Adequate response would include: Correc(on of the "quarter-mile" error, neighborhood-level parkland data with methodology, and an analysis of the project's eﬀect on parkland goal achievement.

Response to G.10: Net Loss of Recrea<onal and Open Space Resources Comment Summary: GLIDER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION notes the project site includes approximately three acres of playing ﬁelds and argues that providing only 0.68 acres of private open space "will s(ll result in a net loss of recrea(onal and open space resources in the area." Response Summary: FirstCarbon defers to Topical Response C, which argues the site "is not open to the public or designated for public recrea(onal use" and is "currently fenced and does not provide public access." Therefore, "its development would not result in the loss of a designated park or recrea(onal resource." Cri2que:

Technically correct but substan2vely evasive. The response is correct that the site is not formally designated as public parkland. However, the commenter's point is about the prac(cal loss of open space resources — three acres of playing ﬁelds that existed on the site. CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15125 requires descrip(on of the exis(ng environmental sesng, which includes the physical condi(ons on the site. The fact that the playing ﬁelds are not formally designated as parkland does not mean their loss has no environmental signiﬁcance. The response frames this as a binary legal ques(on (designated park or not) rather than engaging with the commenter's substan(ve concern about net loss of open space.

No quan2ﬁca2on of net loss. The response does not acknowledge or quan(fy the net loss of approximately 2.32 acres of open space (3 acres of exis(ng ﬁelds minus 0.68 acres of proposed open space). While the PDO/PIO compliance mechanism may legally oﬀset this loss through in-lieu fees, the EIR should disclose the physical change.

Conclusion
FirstCarbon Solu(ons' responses to Le:er G do not meet the standard of "good faith, reasoned analysis" required by CEQA Guidelines Sec(on 15088 and applicable case law for several of the eleven comments. The responses are characterized by excessive cross-referencing, boilerplate dismissals, failure to answer speciﬁc ques(ons, and at least one factual misquota(on of the commenter's own words. While some responses are par(ally adequate (G.5, G.6, G.10), the majority (G.1, G.3, G.4, G.7, G.8, G.9, G.11) are deﬁcient in ways that go beyond mere style — they fail to provide the substan(ve analysis and evidence that CEQA requires.

Supplemental responses and addi(onal errata correc(ons are warranted to bring the FEIR into compliance with CEQA's response-to-comments requirements.

Key CEQA Authori<es Referenced
CEQA Guidelines § 15088 — Response to comments; good faith, reasoned analysis required CEQA Guidelines § 15088(d) — Consolidated responses permi:ed but must address signiﬁcant issues CEQA Guidelines § 15125 — Descrip(on of exis(ng environmental sesng; factual accuracy CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) — Mi(ga(on measures must be fully enforceable CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 — Alterna(ves analysis
CEQA Guidelines § 15130 — Cumula(ve impacts analysis
CEQA Guidelines § 15132 — Contents of Final EIR
CEQA Guidelines § 15145 — Specula(ve impacts; EIR should explain why evalua(on is not possible CEQA Guidelines § 15064(d) — Direct and indirect physical changes CEQA Guidelines § 15097 — Mi(ga(on monitoring and repor(ng CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 — VMT as transporta(on impact metric CEQA Guidelines § 15204 — Focus of review
CEQA Guidelines § 15268 — Ministerial projects exempt from CEQA Key Case Law Referenced
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Commi5ee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344 — Responses require good faith, reasoned analysis
Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109 — Duty to respond to signiﬁcant environmental points
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 — EIR must disclose analy(c route between facts and conclusions
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 — Reasonably foreseeable indirect eﬀects
Prepared: August 20, 2026
Source document: Glider Residen(al Project Final EIR, City of San José, SCH# 2024091026, prepared by FirstCarbon Solu(ons, dated August 14, 2026

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. carpooling initiative. Because not all households will have school-aged children, assuming full neighborhood-wide participation is practically unachievable. Adjusting this program to reflect realistic, data-backed family demographic participation rates will ensure our community traffic expectations remain grounded.

Clear Allocation of VMT Offset Fees to Local Traffic Calming: To help address the elevated 17.04 VMT level, the developer is paying approximately $4 million in VMT Override Offset Fees. I strongly urge the City Council to explicitly direct a portion of these funds to immediate neighborhood traffic- calming improvements—starting on Glider Drive and Suisse Drive, before extending out to Santa Teresa Boulevard and Snell Avenue. Installing features like speed humps, electronic pedestrian crossing signals, or traffic islands on these immediate streets will directly offset local driving impacts and protect students and residents during school peak hours.

Restricted Construction Working Hours: To minimize disruption to surrounding families and avoid severe congestion during school commute times, I request that the City impose strict construction hours as a condition of approval. Specifically, construction activity and heavy equipment haul trips should be prohibited on weekends and restricted to reduced weekday hours that explicitly avoid peak school drop-off and pick-up times for nearby Santa Teresa High School.

Localized Parkland Considerations: The FEIR evaluates parkland ratios primarily through a citywide lens (3.2 acres per 1,000 residents). Given that the development will replace existing open playing fields, providing more detailed neighborhood-level park calculations and securing publicly accessible recreational space on-site will better preserve the quality of life for both new and existing residents.

Neighborhood Shade and Privacy Protections: To foster good neighbor relations, I request that the developer include a formal shade, shadow, and privacy study for homes directly bordering the property line. Implementing thoughtful landscape buffers or adjusted building setbacks will help minimize privacy and light impacts on adjacent backyards.

I urge the City Council and Planning Commission to approve Alternative 2 (62 units) and incorporate these practical traffic, working hour restrictions, open space, and design improvements into the project's final conditions of approval.

Sincerely,
Gourish

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This is just plain WRONG!
Having your car engine run and run without finding parking sure does impact the physical environment. And that would be many people running their engines.

Your report shows NO COMMON SENSE and anyone would tell you that not requiring proper parking is insane and a detriment to the environment.

I believe you should alter your degree of density to support proper environmental measures.

2. Emergency Evacuation

As per your report:
"A number of comments expressed concern over impediment of the local emergency evacuation egress. Some commenters noted that an increase in traffic could cause emergency evacuation issues. In addition, some commenters raised concern over increased evacuation times due to impacts of the proposed project.

Response According to the Hazards and Hazardous Materials thresholds outlined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have an impact if it would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As detailed in Draft EIR Section 3.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page 3.5-19, the main arterial roads into and out of the project vicinity are Snell Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard, which would serve as the main emergency response routes into and out of the project vicinity.

The proposed project would be required to adhere to evacuation standards set forth in San José’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which outlines general procedures in response to emergency evacuations. Additionally, the TA Report, included as Appendix I of the Draft EIR, details that traffic generated by the proposed project is not expected to negatively affect traffic operations within the vicinity and surrounding road network, and would be consistent with the City’s congestion management standards. This indicates that traffic generated as a result of the proposed project would not impair an emergency evacuation."

Your report states that traffic generated as a result of this project would not impair an emergency evacuation- but if the emergency was at the time the Santa Teresa high school starts or finishes, you would find a different result.

I do not see in your evaluation of emergency evacuation that you studied this in the appropriate timeline of the Santa Teresa HS start and finish schedule.

Thank you,
Joanie Murphy
District 10

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Since the sale of the Glider Property was announced, approximately 5 years ago, Glider Neighborhood Advocates have attempted to engage in cordial communication with True Life Companies. After several years with no response, we were able to meet, once, in a community member’s home with Aidan Barry, an Executive Vice-President for True Life. His overall demeanor and opinion were that community input was not welcomed and True Life did not need to share plans of the development, however he did concede that perhaps concessions could be made around placement of windows to address the invasion of privacy of residents bordering the development.

This San Jose project is fairly unique in that it is an outright sale of school property to a developer that will not generate future income for the school district. So, it is very important to consider the precedent that this proposed project may represents. I urge the Planning Commission to propose a Resolution that will:

Require the developer, True Life Companies, to engage in community participation, not one-sided opportunities for community to voice their concerns and desires with no intention of engaging them in the final outcome of the project.

In addition, the resolution you adopt should incorporate measures to minimize shade imposition and provide privacy protections for bordering houses.

Do not exempt the developer from the minimum required setbacks to keep density lower.

Do not grant a request for extended constructions hours on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM

The Planning Commission is responsible for allowing Builders’ Remedy to bypass so many laws and ordinances that would result in the development this property in a responsible manner agreeable to residents in the Glider neighborhood. You now have the opportunity to allow the residents in the neighborhood to have as few disturbances and impositions that this project will impose by granting some concessions.

Please consider these requests, for planning of our city should not be blind to the needs of the actual people who live in the City of San Jose.

Thank you for your consideration,

Laura Fujikawa

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. future textbook and curriculum adoptions, and provide essential technology upgrades to prepare our students to become the leaders of tomorrow.

The development also offers an important environmental benefit through the planting of 159 new trees, contributing to a greener, healthier, and more welcoming neighborhood.

Additionally, since the closure of Glider Elementary School, the District has incurred more than $8,000 per month in security costs to maintain the vacant property. Redeveloping the site provides an opportunity to put this property to productive use while reducing an ongoing financial burden on the District.

As someone who has called this neighborhood home for 17 years, whose children attended Glider Elementary School, and who has dedicated 28 years to serving the Oak Grove School District, I understand how meaningful this property is to our community. I do not want to see our community face another school closure because we did not do enough to support neighborhood growth and sustainability. I truly believe this redevelopment is a step in the right direction.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge Mayor Mahan and the San José City Council to approve the proposed redevelopment of the former Glider Elementary School site, including 80 single-family homes and the planting of 159 new trees.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and your service to our community.

Cecily
Cecily Vu

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good evening, Chair Cantrell and Commissioners.

My name is Chuck Baylot. I am an employee of the Oak Grove School District and currently serve as President of CSEA Chapter 412, which represents classified employees in the District.

I am providing this statement solely in my individual capacity. I am not speaking on behalf of CSEA, Chapter 412, or its membership, and my comments should not be interpreted as an endorsement or official position of CSEA or the Chapter. With that distinction made, I personally support the Glider Residential Project and respectfully ask the Planning Commission to recommend its approval. As a longtime District employee, I have seen firsthand the challenges that ongoing financial pressures create for a school district. Those pressures are not limited to numbers on a budget document. They can ultimately affect employees, the services we provide, and, most importantly, the students and families who depend on those services. The projected proceeds of approximately $26.6 million from the Glider property would provide significant resources to Oak Grove School District at a time when maintaining fiscal stability is increasingly difficult. Those resources can help the District preserve staffing and services and reduce the need for deeper cuts that could affect school operations, student support, libraries, music, counseling, special education, instructional programs, after school sports, and other important services. I also believe there is value in putting a former school site that is no longer needed for its original purpose to productive use. Converting that asset into resources that can support Oak Grove's current and future students makes sense to me as a District employee and member of the community. The project also addresses needs beyond the District. It would add 80 ownership homes, including 11 deed restricted affordable ownership homes, while providing a publicly accessible park and other neighborhood improvements. I also appreciate the project's commitment to prevailing wages for the construction work. I recognize that there are community concerns surrounding development and that those concerns deserve to be heard and considered. After weighing those concerns against the potential benefits, however, I believe the Glider project represents a reasonable and beneficial use of the property. For those reasons, I personally support the Glider Residential Project and respectfully ask the Planning Commission to move it forward with a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Chuck Baylot

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This e mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthori ed review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

declines and the corresponding loss of ongoing revenue, even as districts continue to provide the programs and services students need.

That is why the approximately $26.6 million in proceeds associated with the Glider property are so important. These resources will strengthen the District's long term fiscal position and help protect the educational experience our students deserve, including lower class sizes, student support, libraries, music and the arts, special education, multilingual learner services, and other programs that become increasingly difficult to sustain when revenues decline. This is responsible stewardship of a public asset in service of students.

The project also provides a broader community benefit that directly responds to the affordability challenge: housing. Glider will create 80 new ownership homes, including 11 deed-restricted affordable ownership homes, with 159 new trees. The City Council has made building more housing a formal priority, and Mayor Mahan has emphasized expanding attainable homeownership and creating a San José where the next generation can afford to remain. This project contributes to that goal by creating opportunities for families to put down roots, build equity, and become part of this community.

Those new families can also become part of the Oak Grove community. Nearby schools have capacity to welcome additional students. When families can afford to live here, our neighborhoods are strengthened, our schools can welcome new children, and San José has a better opportunity to remain a community where families can build their futures.

There is another important part of the Glider story. For over eight years, this former school property has stood vacant. A property of this size does not benefit our students, the District, or the surrounding neighborhood simply by remaining empty. It requires ongoing maintenance and security, creates a continuing liability for the District, and has become a source of nuisance activity rather than a contributing part of the community.

Approval gives us an opportunity to change that story. Instead of a vacant former school site, Glider can become a thriving and vibrant part of this neighborhood again, with new homes, new neighbors, a publicly accessible park, and new homeowners investing in their community. The 11 deed restricted affordable ownership homes are especially meaningful because they extend the possibility of homeownership to families for whom it may otherwise be out of reach. There is something particularly meaningful about the possibility that children can once again call this property home, not because they attend a school here, but because their families can experience the stability, pride, and long term benefits of homeownership in a wonderful community.

After more than eight years of vacancy, we believe it is time for this property to serve the community again. Glider represents a responsible use of a former public-school asset that creates lasting educational value while also delivering new housing, affordable homeownership, a public park, neighborhood investment, and the opportunity to welcome new families into Oak Grove schools. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that this project move forward.

On behalf of the Oak Grove School District and the students and families we serve, I respectfully ask the City Council to take the final step and approve the Glider Residential Project.

Your support will demonstrate to the community at large that you are fully committed to improving our public schools here in San José.

Sincerely,
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. --
Dr. Ivan Chaidez
Superintendent
Oak Grove School District
Pronouns: He/Él/Him/His
Imagine, Create, Achieve: Together We Thrive!
www.ogsd.net

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

6578 Santa Teresa Boulevard | San Jose, CA 95119 | Phone: (408) 227-8300 | Fax: (408) 629-7183

September 11, 2026
Community Benefit - Support OGSD Schools with Financial Stability to Benefit All Students! Dear Mayor Mahan and members of the City Council,
I am Dr. Ivan Chaidez, Superintendent of the Oak Grove School District (OGSD). I am writing in support of the Glider Residential Project and to ask for your approval.

This project represents the culmination of a deliberate process by the District to responsibly manage a former school property that is no longer needed for educational use. The Glider site has been through years of public discussion, environmental review, City analysis, and community input. Most recently, on August 26, the San José Planning Commission unanimously recommended the project for approval to the City Council. We appreciate the careful review throughout this process.

For Oak Grove, the central issue is our responsibility to the more than 8,375 students we serve today and to those who will attend our schools in the future. Like many school districts throughout our region, Oak Grove has experienced declining enrollment and the financial pressure that comes with it.

This is not a challenge unique to our District. Housing affordability and the high overall cost of living are among the forces making it increasingly difficult for families with children to remain in, or move into, communities like San José. Fewer school-age children in our neighborhoods means enrollment declines and the corresponding loss of ongoing revenue, even as districts continue to provide the programs and services students need.

That is why the approximately $26.6 million in proceeds associated with the Glider property are so important. These resources will strengthen the District's long-term fiscal position and help protect the educational experience our students deserve, including lower class sizes, student support, libraries, music and the arts, special education, multilingual learner services, and other programs that become increasingly difficult to sustain when revenues decline. This is responsible stewardship of a public asset in service of students.

The project also provides a broader community benefit that directly responds to the affordability challenge: housing. Glider will create 80 new ownership homes, including 11 deed-restricted affordable ownership homes. The City Council has made building more housing a formal priority, and Mayor Mahan has emphasized expanding attainable homeownership and creating a San José where the next generation can afford to remain. This project contributes to that goal by creating opportunities for families to put down roots, build equity, and become part of this community.

Approval gives us an opportunity to change that story. Instead of a vacant former school site, Glider can become a thriving and vibrant part of this neighborhood again, with new homes, new neighbors, a publicly accessible park, and new homeowners investing in their community. The 11 deed-restricted affordable ownership homes are especially meaningful because they extend the possibility of homeownership to families for whom it may otherwise be out of reach. There is something particularly meaningful about the possibility that children can once again call this property home, not because they attend a school here, but because their families can experience the stability, pride, and long-term benefits of homeownership in a wonderful community.

On behalf of the Oak Grove School District and the students and families we serve, I respectfully ask the City Council to take the final step and approve the Glider Residential Project.

Your support will demonstrate to the community at large that you are fully committed to improving our public schools here in San José.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ivan Chaidez
Superintendent
Oak Grove School District

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This comment came in after my deadline so please add it to the CC comments. Thank you! From: Jean Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 2:06 PM
To: Jean Cohen
Subject: SBLC Letter – Agenda Item 5a

You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Chair Cantrell and Members of the Planning Commission, Please see the attached letter from the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council regarding Agenda Item 5a for today’s Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jean F. Cohen
Executive Officer
South Bay Labor Council

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

--
Kristine Loeper
She/Her/Hers
Principal
Julia Baldwin Elementary School
280 Martinvale Ln.

San Jose, CA 95119

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

Page 1 of 2 ends

9/13/2026
To: Mayor MaƩ Mahan and members of the San Jose City Council Subject: San Jose City Council MeeƟng September 15, 2026 Agenda Item 10.2, Glider Project I am wriƟng as a resident within walking distance of the proposed project area.

In November 2019 the Oak Grove School District appointed a 7-11 District Advisory CommiƩee to advise the District and Board on the use and/or disposiƟon of District surplus property including the Glider property. The Board ignored the recommendaƟons of this commiƩee and decided to sell the Glider property to a developer. See aƩached copy of the CommiƩee’s draŌ report.

At an Oak Grove School Board District MeeƟng on June 17, 2021, twenty public speakers expressed concerns about the plans for the Glider school property. The community was concerned because there was so liƩle outreach or discussion with the community versus many private sessions with the potenƟal developers.

On December 7, 2021 the Board provided a public online presentaƟon about their reasoning for selling the Glider property but there was no interacƟon with the audience, no Q & A and no copies of the presentaƟon provided except later the video of the meeƟng was posted online.

The Advisory CommiƩee had suggested that the District Oﬃce and Maintenance & OperaƟons site would be a more appropriate site for redevelopment due to its being located in a Transit Employment Center. As stated in the draŌ Advisory CommiƩee Report: This designaƟon is applied to areas planned for intensive job growth because of their importance as employment districts to the City and high degree of access to transit and other faciliƟes and services.

This would allow signiﬁcant density for housing up to 25 stories.

Why did the Advisory CommiƩee report get dismissed without public discussion and input? So right from the beginning, the concerns of the community were not adequately addressed.

One local organizaƟon, Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood AssociaƟon, sent a leƩer to the Oak Grove School District Board of Trustees on June 10, 2021. It was pointed out that when the San Jose Greenprint was ﬁrst prepared in 2000, the calculaƟons on proper access to open space for recreaƟon included school properƟes as well as parks. The need to conƟnue to provide access to school properƟes for residents’ recreaƟon has never been more important. Glide Elementary School has provided a large green space area and other open space along with a playground that local residents appreciated and used frequently. The ﬁnal EIR minimizes the community beneﬁt of this open space resource by saying that the area is “currently fenced and

Page 2 of 2 ends

does not provide access to the community.” This fails to acknowledge the loss of recreaƟonal space enjoyed by the community unƟl the School District fenced the property.

This is just one example of the inadequacy of the Final EIR.

There were about sixty people that sent leƩers with concerns as shown in the FEIR. It appears that the responses to those comments are similarly inadequate.

The City Council has the authority to approve a reasonable compromise, which is AlternaƟve 2.

Thank you for your consideraƟon of these comments.

Regards,
Lynne Paulson
Email
AƩachment: 7-11 District Advisory CommiƩee DraŌ Report

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 1 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 2 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 3 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 4 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 5 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 8 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 9 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

Site Profile Report http://dc1.spatialstream.com/GetFile.aspx?file=PublicTemp/InteractiveReports/dcgrealestate/... 10 of 10 5/29/2018, 12:33 PM

6578 Santa Teresa Boulevard | San Jose, CA 95119 | Phone: (408) 227-8300 | Fax: (408) 629-7183

September 14, 2026

Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,

My name is Amy Boles, and I am speaking tonight as the Associate Superintendent of Human Resources, a proud 28-year employee of the Oak Grove School District, and a former district parent and resident. In my role leading HR, I support the recruitment, hiring, and retention of nearly 1,000 dedicated staff members who show up every single day for our students and families. I am writing in support of the Glider Residential Project and to ask for your approval.

In all my years with Oak Grove, my anchor has always been our children. Fundamentally, this project is about them.

The approximately $26.6 million in proceeds from the Glider property will directly help Oak Grove protect smaller class sizes and preserve the essential programs that enrich our students' lives—from counseling, libraries, and special education to music, the arts, electives, and support for our multilingual learners.

Crucially, these resources protect the very teachers and staff who bring these programs to life.

Like many districts in our region, Oak Grove faces the painful reality of declining enrollment, which severely strains our ongoing revenues. Santa Clara County is currently the fourth most impacted county in California for enrollment loss. Having served this district since 1998, I have watched this decline firsthand.

When I started, we served nearly 12,000 students. For the upcoming 2026–27 school year, our enrollment sits just over 8,000.

To put that 3,500-student loss into perspective, that represents roughly 140 teaching positions over the last 25 years. But this isn't just a number on a spreadsheet; it carries a deep human cost.

Over just the last three years, I have had to personally walk into schools—including Taylor, Sakamoto, Indigo, Hayes, Edenvale, STEAM@Stipe, Baldwin, and Ledesma—at the start of the school year to release 11 temporary teachers because projected enrollment fell short. Delivering that news breaks my heart. This annual cycle of reorganization within the first two weeks of school creates anxiety for families, disrupts classrooms, and hurts teacher morale. It actively undermines our ability to retain the talent our kids deserve. Simply put: we need families, and we need students.

The Glider Residential Project gives us an opportunity to welcome those new families into Oak Grove.

Neighborhood schools like Taylor Elementary and Sakamoto Elementary were built to serve 600 to 700 students each; today, their enrollments sit at 452 and 451. They have open arms and plenty of room to thrive.

Responsible utilization of a property no longer needed as a school site allows us to strengthen our long-term fiscal stability while creating a doorway for new families to join our community. Furthermore, this project brings broader, essential benefits to San José: 80 new ownership homes—including 11

Dr. Ivan Chaidez, Superintendent
Board of Trustees: Frances Herbert | Kaushik C. Joglekar | Diego Martinez | Otila Salazar Torres | Nancy Yue An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Our mission . . . “to ensure that every child’s potential is achieved.” deed-restricted affordable units—construction jobs built with prevailing wages, and a publicly accessible park for the neighborhood.

We fully respect that this Council must carefully weigh land use, environmental, and traffic considerations.

We simply ask that you weigh those factors alongside the vital educational and human needs of our community. Approval of this project represents a direct investment in stable schools, secure educator jobs, and bright futures for our children.

On behalf of the Oak Grove School District, our educators, and the thousands of students we serve today and into the future, I respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Associate Superintendent of Human Resources
Oak Grove School District

Good evening, members of the City Council.

My name is Karyl Brandford, and I serve as the Associate Superintendent of the Business Services Division for our school district. I am speaking tonight to respectfully ask for your approval regarding the proposed sale of our surplus school site.

My primary duty is ensuring our district remains fiscally sound so that our classrooms continue to receive the resources they need to thrive. However, like many districts across the region, we are confronting the ongoing reality of declining enrollment. Because state funding is directly tied to student attendance, every decrease in enrollment results in a proportional loss of operating revenue.

This proposed sale represents a vital, timely opportunity to stabilize our district’s financial future. The proceeds from this transaction will generate $26.6 million in dedicated capital funding.

Approving this site sale is critical to protecting our schools. These funds will directly bolster our ability to preserve core instructional programs and safeguard essential teaching and support positions against shrinking state revenue. Without strategic property decisions like this, we will be forced to make difficult fiscal choices that directly compromise the quality of education our students receive every day.

On behalf of our students, teachers, and staff, I strongly urge you to approve the sale. Thank you for your time and for your continued partnership in supporting our community's youth.

San Jose City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

San Jose City Council
September 15, 2026