Memorandum — San Jose City Council, September 15, 2026

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR

AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Christopher Burton, Secretary

SUBJECT: See Below DATE: September 8, 2026

COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10

SUBJECT: H23-028, T23-022 & ER23-230 - Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for Certain Real Property Located at Cozy Drive and Glider Drive

RECOMMENDATION

The Planning Commission voted 10-0-1 to recommend the City Council take the following actions:

(a) Adopt a resolution certifying the Glider Residential Project Environmental Impact Report and making certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (b) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide one existing approximately 9.51-gross-acre lot situated at the northeast corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive into 81 lots (80 residential lots, one common lot).
(c) Adopt a resolution approving, subject to conditions, a Site Development Permit to allow the construction of 80 single-family houses (64 detached, 16 attached), an approximately 0.68-gross-acre privately-owned publicly- accessible park, the demolition of six existing buildings associated with the former Glider Elementary School (totaling approximately 56,644 square feet), and the removal of 48 trees (18 ordinance-size, 30 non-ordinance-size), subject to State Density Bonus Law with an incentive/concession to eliminate the TDM Plan requirement, and waivers for reductions in minimum lot area and width, minimum lot frontage, front setback, side interior setback, side corner setback, rear interior setback, and rear corner setback, and a request for extended construction hours on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on an approximately 9.51-gross-acre site on the northwest corner of Cozy Drive and Glider Drive.

COUNCIL AGENDA: 9/15/26
FILE: 26-953
ITEM: 10.2

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
September 8, 2026
Subject: H23-028, T23-022 & ER23-230 - Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map for Certain Real Property Located at Cozy Drive and Glider Drive

Page 2 ends

SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

The hearing before the City Council is to evaluate the requested Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, as well as to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts to Transportation (Vehicle Miles Travelled, VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The subject project is a Builder’s Remedy project filed under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) which proposes the subdivision of the former Glider Elementary School property into 81 lots and the construction of 80 single-family houses and an approximately 0.68-gross-acre privately-owned publicly accessible park.

The Builder’s Remedy is a provision of the Housing Accountability Act which comes into effect when a jurisdiction’s Housing Element is not substantially compliant with state law. This provision allows developers to bypass local zoning and General Plan requirements. More information on the Builder’s Remedy statutory provision and how the project qualifies is included in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 26, 2026 (Attachment).

If the City Council approves all the actions listed above, as recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant would be allowed to demolish the existing Glider Elementary School, remove 48 trees (18 ordinance-size), subdivide an existing approximately 9.51-gross-acre lot into 81 lots, and construct 80 single-family houses with associated improvements.

BACKGROUND

On August 26, 2026, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approval of a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit.

An overview of the public hearing is provided in the Commission Recommendation and Input section below.

Vice Chair Young made a motion to approve the recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Arguello. The motion passed 10-0-1 (Bhandal absent). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approve the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit.

Page 3 ends

ANALYSIS

The project is consistent with City requirements and state standards under the Housing Accountability Act (Builder’s Remedy) and the State Density Bonus Law, and with the conditions included in the resolution. Of note, the project is located in an area of immitigable VMT per capita, and the City Council must approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations under CEQA to accept the significant and unavoidable transportation impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. The project provides 11 units for low-income households and will indirectly fund transportation improvements to offset the significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA.

Analysis of the proposed CEQA clearance, Site Development Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map, including conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and required permit findings, which includes an analysis pursuant to City Council policies and the State’s Housing Accountability Act, is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 26, 2026 (Attachment).

EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP

The City Council is the final decision-making body for the Environmental Determination, Vesting Tentative Map, and Site Development Permit for this project, because of the need to override significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

If the City Council accepts the Planning Commission’s recommendation to certify the Environmental Impact Report, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit, then the applicant may proceed with the acquisition of necessary permits to implement the project, including the construction of 80 single-family houses and associated improvements.

If the City Council denies the Planning Commission’s recommendation, then the project would be unable to proceed.

COORDINATION

The preparation of this memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

This memorandum will be posted on the City’s Council Agenda website for the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting.

Page 4 ends

Staff followed City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy1 to inform the public of the proposed project. On-site signs have been posted on the project frontages since February 14, 2024. A legal notice of the public hearing was distributed as appropriate to the owners and tenants of all properties located within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site and e-mailed to the interested parties list.

A Joint Environmental Impact Report Scoping and Community Meeting was held in- person at the Santa Teresa Library on October 15, 2024. 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.

BOARD, COMMISSION, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND INPUT

At the Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 2026, the Commission considered the Site Development Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, and associated Environmental Impact Report. The public hearing included a staff presentation, the applicant’s presentation (from Dr. Ivan Chaidez, superintendent of the Oak Grove School District), public comments, the applicant’s response (from Kelley Rutchena of TTLC San Jose – Glider, LLC), and questions, and concluded with the Planning Commission's decision to accept staff’s recommendation on the project.

31 commenters spoke regarding the project, with 18 speaking for the project and 13 speaking against. Of speakers in support, ten speakers spoke with regard to supporting the Oak Grove School District; eight mentioned supporting housing, including affordable housing; three mentioned that the project was a good fit for the neighborhood; and three spoke to existing security concerns on the closed campus.

Of the 13 speakers against the project, four spoke in support of the EIR Alternative 2 (reduced density, additional park acreage) from the CEQA document; four spoke regarding the loss of open space and/or Public/Quasi-Public lands. Three commenters addressed the following topics: increased traffic, Saturday hours, and quality-of-life and neighborhood-character concerns. Two commenters spoke about infrastructure concerns, specifically sewer and electrical grid capacity.

After public comment, the Commission asked questions of City staff and the applicant, generally falling under the topics of the project process, including Builder’s Remedy, the private park, sewer infrastructure, and the VMT offset valuation.

1 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12813/636669915135130000

Page 5 ends

Regarding project process, staff explained the history of the application, including reference to a previous General Plan Amendment application, File No. GP22-006, which staff did not support. Commissioner Oliverio summarized that although staff did not support the General Plan Amendment application, which was subsequently withdrawn, the current project can move forward because it qualifies for residential development as a Builder’s Remedy project. Staff was also asked questions regarding the rear setbacks to lots outside of the project site, which are proposed as a minimum of ten feet; staff responded that because the project is a Builder’s Remedy project, any proposed setback is deemed consistent so long as it is not found to be causing a health and safety impact, and State Density Bonus Law also allows the reduction of rear setbacks.

Regarding Saturday construction hours, commissioners raised questions about whether this must be allowed, the safety of construction with additional weekend traffic, and if neighbors would be notified of Saturday construction. Staff, including the City Attorney’s Office, responded that because construction hour regulations are within the zoning code, only objective requirements can be applied to Builder’s Remedy projects.

However, the Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program in the EIR includes noise mitigation requirements, such as neighbor notification, a construction schedule, and a noise disturbance coordinator. The resolution also includes a condition requiring a construction noise mitigation plan for non-standard construction hours (outside of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays), including Saturday hours. Additionally, staff stated that because the project would have internal roads, construction activity would be mainly in the interior of the site and would not have to block the surrounding streets.

Commissioners asked questions about the park's location and the provenance of funding for its construction and maintenance. Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services (PRNS) staff stated that the park location was determined by the developer as part of the project design, as the proposal is for a privately owned, publicly accessible park. As the parkland obligation applies to the project, the applicant is required to either dedicate land for a park or pay in-lieu fees; however, if the applicant dedicated land, PRNS would not have sufficient funds to design and develop a park; therefore, PRNS supported the proposal for a privately owned, publicly accessible park. As the park would be privately owned, its operations and maintenance would be borne by the future Homeowners’ Association, not the City.

Regarding sewer infrastructure, a question was raised about whether there would be adequate capacity. As this is a former school site, Public Works staff stated that there would be adequate sanitary sewer capacity for the project, including connections to both Cozy Drive and Glider Drive. The sewer analysis found that the mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows from the project, and any further sewer design would be subject to Public Works review to demonstrate adequate conveyance capacity.

Page 6 ends

A question was also asked regarding where and how the VMT offset fee would be allocated. Public Works staff answered that the funds would be allocated to the Transportation Department. After the project is built, the Transportation Department would have discretion to use the funds for multimodal improvements within the area, such as traffic calming within the neighborhood or safety and transit improvements at the Snell and Santa Teresa intersection.

Certain Commissioners stated their support of the project prior to the final vote, as follows:
• Commissioner Casey stated that he believed the traffic would be an improvement from when the project site was a school, that the project would replace a blighted site, and that the project is proposed at a reasonable density, has adequate parking, fits within the neighborhood, and is overall a good use of the property and will enhance the neighborhood.
• Vice Chair Young stated that he also believes the traffic situation would be an improvement compared to when the school was open, that he trusts that the Oak Grove School District and their staff have made a sound financial decision, and that increased density is the only way to meet the City’s housing needs. He stated that he liked that the project considered the surrounding neighborhood, the privately- maintained park, and the number of replacement trees.
• Commissioner Bickford stated that she appreciated the design of the project, including single-family houses and duets, and that she echoed Vice Chair Young’s thoughts regarding being conscientious of what the school district is doing to support the district.
• Commissioner Rosario stated that the project would both add housing to the City and increase the ability of the school district to serve its students. • Commissioner Cao focused on housing affordability and the need for more housing in the City, as well as balancing the finances of the school district. • Commissioner Arguello echoed Commissioner Cao’s thoughts on housing affordability, stated that he appreciated the inclusion of low-income housing in the project, and that he agreed with Vice Chair Young’s thoughts on the school district’s financial situation.
• Chair Cantrell stated that the City needs to build more housing, and that the inclusion of deed-restricted housing in the project makes the American Dream available for more people.

Commissioners then voted on Vice Chair Young’s motion to approve the staff recommendation and recommend that City Council approve the project. The motion passed 10-0-1 (Bhandal absent).

Page 7 ends

CEQA

The City of San José, as the lead agency for the proposed Project, prepared an EIR in compliance with CEQA. The Glider Residential Project’s Draft EIR (DEIR) was circulated for public review and comment from January 9, 2025, through February 23, 2026. A First Amendment to the DEIR (FEIR) was prepared which provided responses to public comments submitted during public circulation. The FEIR was posted online for public review on August 14, 2026.

The DEIR identified potential environmental impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources but these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and transportation due to the proposed project’s location in an immitigable VMT area, pursuant to City Council Policy 5-1.

Under the City’s VMT Policy, projects that cannot fully mitigate VMT impacts must either be redesigned, relocated to a lower-VMT area, or approved with a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of EIR certification.

For this project, an 80-unit residential development, feasible mitigation measures would reduce VMT impacts but not to a less-than-significant level. The project would also result in a significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impact. Accordingly, project approval requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations for both transportation (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

To address these significant and unavoidable impacts, the project has proposed to pay the City’s full policy-based VMT offset valuation.

In considering approval and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, City Council must determine whether the benefits of the project outweigh these significant impacts. The overriding benefits considered for this project are as follows:

• The provision of diverse income housing options through the provision of 69 market-rate single-family houses and 11 affordable units (13% of the units in the project) restricted to households earning up to 80% AMI for a period of 55 years; • Payment of the VMT offset valuation ($4,055,796), which could fund the construction of intersection improvements at Santa Teresa Boulevard and Snell Avenue, and implementation of a TDM Plan. It should be noted that the project is still required to implement a TDM Plan in order to mitigate VMT impacts to the maximum extent feasible, which is separate from the request for an incentive/concession to eliminate the zoning code requirement (i.e., achieving a 25-point threshold) for implementation of a TDM plan.

Page 8 ends

• Replace an underutilized school building with residential development designed to comply with the City’s Reach Code and Green Building Ordinance. • The project promotes the utilization of existing urban infrastructure and services.

Additional analysis of the proposed CEQA clearance is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 26, 2026 (Attachment). The FEIR and other related environmental documents are available on the Planning website.2

PUBLIC SUBSIDY REPORTING

This item does not include a public subsidy as defined in section 53083 or 53083.1 of the California Government Code or the City’s Open Government Resolution.

/s/

CHRISTOPHER BURTON
Secretary, Planning Commission

For questions on the Site Development Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, please contact John Tu, Division Manager Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department, at [email protected] or (408) 535-6818. For questions on the environmental determination, please contact David Keyon, Principal Planner, Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department at [email protected] or (408) 535-7898.

ATTACHMENT:

Planning Commission Staff Report August 26, 2026

2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/planning-building-code- enforcement/planning-division/environmental-planning/environmental-review/active-eirs/glider-residential- project

San Jose City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

San Jose City Council
September 15, 2026