Attachments — San Jose City Council, October 20, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

29,

30. 31.

32. 33.

34. 35.

36. File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 13 of 29 ends

Street Number Visibility. Street numbers of the buildings shall be easily visible from the street at all times, day and night.

Utilities. All new on-site telephone, electrical, and other service facilities shall be placed underground.

Mechanical Equipment. The location and type of mechanical equipment shall be as shown on the Approved Plans and shall be screened from view. Changes to the mechanical equipment require the issuance of a Permit Adjustment or Amendment to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

No Generators Approved. This Permit does not include the approval of any stand-by/backup electrical power generation facility. Any future stand-by/backup generators would require the permittee to secure appropriate permits and conform to the regulations of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.

Fence Standards. Fences shall be erected in accordance with the standards established on the Approved Plans. Changes to the approved fencing shall comply with Section 17.24 of the City of San José Municipal Code, as may be amended.

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.

Green Building Requirements. This development is subject to the City9s Green Building Ordinance for Private Sector New Construction as set for in Municipal Code Section 17.84. Prior to the issuance of any shell permits, or complete building permits, for the construction of buildings approved through the scope of this Permit, the Permittee shall pay a Green Building Refundable Deposit. In order to receive a refund of the deposit, the project must achieve the minimum requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.84. The request for the refund of the Green Building Deposit together with evidence demonstrating the achievement of the green building standards indicated in Municipal Code Section 17.84 shall be submitted within a year after the building permit expires or becomes final, unless a request for an extension is submitted to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

Housing Department Conditions under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Residential Developments proposing to construct or modify ten (10) or more residential units are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (<IHO=) and must submit an Affordable Housing Compliance Plan (<AHCP=).
a. Mixed Compliance with Rental Inclusionary Units On Site SJMC 5.08.525 The proposed residential development will consist of a total of 276 rental dwelling units. The project proposes to comply through the Mixed Compliance option, providing 5% of the units (14 units) as on-site inclusionary rental units restricted to Affordable Rent for households earning no more than 50% AMI, in exchange for a reduced in-lieu fee rate. The project is located within the Central IHO area, which is considered a strong market, and is therefore subject to an in-lieu fee rate of $11.69. The proposed development will provide a total of 163,033 square feet of rentable space and, based on the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 fee schedule, will be subject to a fee of $1,905,855.77.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 14 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 13 of 29 ends

29. Street Number Visibility. Street numbers of the buildings shall be easily visible from the street at all times, day and night.

30. Utilities. All new on-site telephone, electrical, and other service facilities shall be placed underground.

31. Mechanical Equipment. The location and type of mechanical equipment shall be as shown on the Approved Plans and shall be screened from view. Changes to the mechanical equipment require the issuance of a Permit Adjustment or Amendment to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

32. No Generators Approved. This Permit does not include the approval of any stand-by/backup electrical power generation facility. Any future stand-by/backup generators would require the permittee to secure appropriate permits and conform to the regulations of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.

33. Fence Standards. Fences shall be erected in accordance with the standards established on the Approved Plans. Changes to the approved fencing shall comply with Section 17.24 of the City of San Jose Municipal Code, as may be amended.

34. 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 shal l ensure that all storm drain inlet markings located on privately-maintained streets within the property are present and maintained.

35. Green Building Requirements. This development is subject to the City's Green Building Ordinance for Private Sector New Construction as set for in Municipal Code Section 17.84. Prior to the issuance of any shell permits, or complete building permits, for the construction of buildings approved through the scope of this Permit, the Permittee shal l pay a Green Building Refundable Deposit. In order to receive a refund of the deposit, the proj ect must achieve the minimum requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Section 17.84. The request for the refund of the Green Building Deposit together with evidence demonstrating the achievement of the green building standards indicated in Municipal Code Section 17.84 shall be submitted within a year after the building permit expires or becomes final, unless a request for an extension is submitted to the Director of Planning, Bui lding, and Code Enforcement.

36. Housing Department Conditions under the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Residential Developments proposing to construct or modify ten (10) or more residential units are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ("IHO) and must submit an Affordable Housing Compliance Plan ("AHCP").
a. Mixed Compliance with Rental Inclusionary Units On Site SJMC 5.08.525 The proposed residential development will consist of a total of 276 rental dwelling units. The project proposes to comply through the Mixed Compliance option, providing 5% of the units (14 units) as on-site inclusionary rental units restricted to Affordable Rent for households earning no more than 50% AMI, in exchange for a reduced in-lieu fee rate. The project is located within the Central IHO area, which is considered a strong market, and is therefore subject to an in-lieu fee rate of $1 1 .69. The proposed development will provide a total of 163 ,033 square feet of rentable space and, based on the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 fee schedule, will be subject to a fee of $1 ,905,855.77.

Page 14 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 14 of 29 ends

If Multifamily Housing Incentive Program or Downtown Residential Incentive Program allocations remain available at the time of building permit application, and the applicant demonstrates compliance with the program requirements, the City Council may consider reductions to IHO obligations and the Construction Tax. Additionally, the Housing Department is in discussions with the developer about a future opportunity to master-lease additional affordable units in the project.

To account for inflation in affordable housing development costs the in lieu fee shall be increased on July 1 of each year by the Engineering News Record ("ENR") Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco. Applicant must pay the adjusted in-lieu fees applicable at the time after recording an Inclusionary Housing Agreement, but prior to receiving its certificate of occupancy. All projects subject to the [HO that select to provide Inclusionary Units must comply with the following timing of construction and Inclusionary Unit standards pursuant to the IHO and IHO Guidelines:
i. Completion of Inclusionary Units prior to or at the same time as Market Rate Units in the same Residential Development (<Market Rate Units=);
ii. Dispersal throughout the Residential Development so as not to create a geographic concentration;
ill. Same exterior design and quality of construction as Market Rate Units; iv. Functionally equivalent parking when parking is provided to Market Rate Units; v. Functionally equivalent interior finishes and features as Market Rate Units; vi. Same amenities, access to common areas, and facilities as Market Rate Units; vii. Same proportion of unit types as Market Rate Units; viii. Comparable square footage of at least 85% of average square footage per unit of Market Rate Units based on bedroom size;
ix. Same bedroom count ratio as Market Rate Units.

Unit Mix
Affordable Units 50%
Market Rate Units AMI
Total Total Total
Unit Type NRSF Units NRSF Units Units
Studios 468 71 480 4 75
1 Bedroom 540 128 514 7 135
2 Bedroom 835 63 750 3 66
Total 262 Total 14 276
b. Actions Required for Housing Department9s Clearance for Demolition Permit(s), Building Permit(s) or Map Approval
Conditions for projects subject to the IHO
Prior to the first to occur of (a) approval of any final map, (b) approval of any parcel map, or (c) issuance of any building permit for a residential development the Inclusionary Housing Agreement must be recorded (senior to all deeds of trust) on the land including all parcels needed to implement Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 15 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 14 of 29 ends

If Multifamily Housing Incentive Program or Downtown Residential Incentive Program al locations remain available at the time of building permit application, and the applicant demonstrates compliance with the program requirements, the City Council may consider reductions to IHO obligations and the Construction Tax. Additionally, the Housing Department is in discussions with the developer about a future opportunity to master-lease additional affordable units in the project.

1. Completion of lnclusionary Units prior to or at the same time as Market Rate Units in the same Residential Development ("Market Rate Units");

11. Dispersal throughout the Residential Development so as not to create a geographic concentration;
iii. Same exterior design and quality of construction as Market Rate Units; iv. Functionally equivalent parking when parking is provided to Market Rate Units; v. Functionally equivalent interior finishes and features as Market Rate Units; vi. Same amenities, access to common areas, and facilities as Market Rate Units; vii. Same proportion of unit types as Market Rate Units; viii. Comparable square footage of at least 85% of average square footage per unit of Market Rate Units based on bedroom size;
ix. Same bedroom count ratio as Market Rate Units.

Unit Mix
Affordable Units 50%
Market Rate Units AMI
Total Total Total
Unit Type NRSF Units NRSF Units Units
Studios 468 71 480 4 75
1 Bedroom 540 128 514 7 135
2 Bedroom 835 63 750 3 66
Total 262 Total 14 276
b. Actions Required for Housing Department's Clearance for Demolition Permit(s), Building Permit(s) or Map Approval
Conditions for projects subject to the IHO
Prior to the first to occur of (a) approval of any final map, (b) approval of any parcel map, or (c) issuance of any building permit for a residential development the lnclusionary Housing Agreement must be recorded (senior to al l deeds of trust) on the land includ ing all parcels needed to implement

Page 15 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 15 of 29 ends

the project9s residential uses and affordable housing obligation including contiguous property under common ownership and control.
c. Actions Required for Housing Department9s Clearance of Final Inspection and Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
Conditions for projects subject to the [HO
No Final Inspection Approval, Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Occupancy, or Notice of Completion for any units will be issued until all requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines are met and an unsubordinated deed-restriction is recorded, if applicable.

37. Public Works Clearance for Building Permit(s) or Map Approval: Prior to the approval of the Tract or Parcel Map (if applicable) by the Director of Public Works, or the issuance of Building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant will be required to have satisfied all of the following Public Works conditions. The applicant is strongly advised to apply for any necessary Public Works permits prior to applying for Building permits. Standard review timelines and submittal instructions for Public Works permits may be found at the following: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/devresources. a. Construction Agreement: The public improvements conditioned as part of this permit require the execution of a Construction Agreement that guarantees the completion of the public improvements in accordance with adopted standards in the City of San Jose Municipal Code Chapters 27.38 and/or 19.32. This agreement includes privately engineered plans, bonds, insurance, a completion deposit, and engineering and inspection fees. b. Transportation: This project is a Housing Development project and qualifies for a statutory Exemption under Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130). In conformance with AB 130, this project meets the requirement for ministerial exemption from a CEQA transportation analysis. The project may be held to objective standards and policies that apply to other similar land use developments within the same zone.
i. Provide installation of audible and visual warning signs at W San Carlos Street garage entrance/exit and a minimum of 50-feet at-grade clearance from gate access to back of walk to allow for stacking of at least two (2) vehicles or confirm that the gate will remain open during the peak inbound trips/PM peak period (typically 4-6 PM). ii. Submit a final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to the satisfaction of the San Jose Department of Transportation prior to Building Permit approval. The final TDM Plan shall include the following measures and shall be implemented prior to the Certificate of Occupancy:
1) Right-Size Off-Site Vehicle Parking Supply (PK-01)
2) Provide Education, Marketing, and Outreach (TP-04)
3) Provide Targeted Behavior Interventions (TP-15)
4) Unbundle Parking Costs from Individual Property Costs (TP-16) 5) Provide Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs (TP-18) c. Diridon Station Area Infrastructure Impact Fee:
i. Associated with the implementation of the Diridon Station Area Plan (Chapter 14.35 of Title 14 of the San Jose Municipal Code) this project is subject to the City9s Diridon Station Area Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 16 File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 15 of 29 ends

the project's residential uses and affordable housing obligation including contiguous property under common ownership and control.
c. Actions Required for Housing Department's Clearance of Final Inspection and Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
Conditions for projects subject to the IHO
No Final Inspection Approval, Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, Certificate of Occupancy, or Notice of Completion for any units will be issued until all requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Agreement, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines are met and an unsubordinated deed-restriction is recorded, if appl icable.

1. Provide installation of audible and visual warning signs at W San Carlos Street garage entrance/exit and a minimum of 50-feet at-grade clearance from gate access to back of walk to allow for stacking of at least two (2) vehicles or confirm that the gate will remain open during the peak inbound trips/PM peak period (typical ly 4-6 PM).

11. Submit a final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to the satisfaction of the San Jose Department of Transportation prior to Building Permit approval. The final TDM Plan shall include the following measures and shal l be implemented prior to the Certificate of Occupancy :
1) Right-Size Off-Site Vehicle Parking Supply (PK-0 1)
2) Provide Education, Marketing, and Outreach (TP-04)
3) Provide Targeted Behavior Interventions (TP- 15)
4) Unbundle Parking Costs from Individual Property Costs (TP- 16) 5) Provide Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs (TP- 18) c. Diridon Station Area Infrastructure Impact Fee:

1. Associated with the implementation of the Diridon Station Area Plan (Chapter 14.35 of Title 14 of the San Jose Municipal Code) this project is subject to the City's Diridon Station Area

Page 16 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 16 of 29 ends

Basic Infrastructure Impact Fee. Projects located within the Diridon Station Area are required to pay an impact fee in categories of Transportation, Plaza, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage.
ii. The 2026 Infrastructure Impact Fee, that includes all infrastructure categories, is $7.45 per s.f. of Office/R&D, $4.91 per s.f. of Retail, $3,630 per Hotel room and $3,389 per residential unit.

This fee is subject to an annual escalation on January Ist per the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for San Francisco. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of Public Works Clearance. Credits will be applied for any infrastructure built as identified in the Diridon Nexus Study by the developer.

Urban Village Plan: This project is located in a designated Urban Village per the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Urban Villages are designed to provide a vibrant and inviting mixed-use setting to attract pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users of all ages and to promote job growth.

Grand Boulevard: This project fronts San Carlos Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard which is designated as one of the seven Grand Boulevards per the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

Grand Boulevards are identified to serve as major transportation corridors for primary routes for VTA light-rail, bus rapid transit, standard or community buses, and other public transit vehicles.

Grading/Geology:
i. A grading permit is required prior to the issuance of a Public Works Clearance. ii. All on-site storm drainage conveyance facilities and earth retaining structures 4 foot in height or greater (top of wall to bottom of footing) or is being surcharged (slope of 3:1 or greater abutting the wall) shall be reviewed and approved under Public Works grading and drainage permit prior to the issuance of Public Works Clearance. The drainage plan should include all underground pipes, building drains, area drains and inlets. The project shall provide storm drainage calculations that adhere to the latest California Plumbing Code as adopted under the City of San Jose Municipal Code Section 24.04.100 or submit an engineered design for Public Works approval designed to convey a 10-year storm event in accordance to the City of San Jose Design for Storm Drains design requirements.
ili. If the project proposes to haul more than 10,000 cubic yards of cut/fill to or from the project site, a haul route permit is required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, contact the Department of Transportation at (408) 535-3850 for more information concerning the requirements for obtaining this permit.
iv. The Project site is within the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone. A geotechnical investigation report addressing the potential hazard of liquefaction must be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to issuance of a grading permit or Public Works Clearance. The report should also include, but not limited to: foundation, earthwork, utility trenching, retaining and drainage recommendations. The investigation should be consistent with the guidelines published by the State of California (CGS Special Publication 117A) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC, 1999). A recommended depth of 50 feet should be explored and evaluated in the investigation.

Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Measures: This project must comply with the City9s Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Policy 6-29) which requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which includes site design measures, source controls and numerically-sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 17 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 16 of 29 ends

Basic Infrastructure Impact Fee. Projects located within the Diridon Station Area are required to pay an impact fee in categories of Transportation, Plaza, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage.

11. The 2026 Infrastructure Impact Fee, that includes all infrastructure categories, is $7.45 per s.f. of Office/R&D, $4.91 per s.f. of Retail, $3,630 per Hotel room and $3,389 per residential unit.

This fee is subject to an annual escalation on January 1st per the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for San Francisco. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of Public Works Clearance. Credits will be applied for any infrastructure built as identified in the Diridon Nexus Study by the developer.
d. Urban Village Plan: This proj ect is located in a designated Urban Village per the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Urban Villages are designed to provide a vibrant and inviting mixed-use setting to attract pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users of all ages and to promote job growth. e. Grand Boulevard: This project fronts San Carlos Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard which is designated as one of the seven Grand Boulevards per the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

Grand Boulevards are identified to serve as major transportation corridors for primary routes for VTA light-rai l, bus rapid transit, standard or community buses, and other public transit vehicles. f. Grading/Geology:

1. A grading permit is required prior to the issuance of a Public Works Clearance.

11. All on-site storm drainage conveyance facilities and earth retaining structures 4 foot in height or greater (top of wal l to bottom of footing) or is being surcharged (slope of 3: 1 or greater abutting the wall) shal l be reviewed and approved under Public Works grading and drainage permit prior to the issuance of Public Works Clearance. The drainage plan should include all underground pipes, building drains, area drains and inlets. The project shall provide storm drainage calculations that adhere to the latest Cal ifornia Plumbing Code as adopted under the City of San Jose Municipal Code Section 24.04. 100 or submit an engineered design for Public Works approval designed to convey a 10-year storm event in accordance to the City of San Jose Design for Storm Drains design requirements.
iii. If the project proposes to haul more than 10,000 cubic yards of cut/fill to or from the proj ect site, a haul route permit is required. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, contact the Department of Transportation at (408) 535-3850 for more information concerning the requirements for obtaining this permit.
iv. The Project site is within the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone. A geotechnical investigation report addressing the potential hazard of liquefaction must be submitted to, reviewed and approved by the City Geologist prior to issuance of a grading permit or Public Works Clearance. The report should also include, but not limited to: foundation, earthwork, utility trenching, retaining and drainage recommendations. The investigation should be consistent with the guidelines published by the State of Cal ifornia (CGS Special Publ ication 11 7A) and the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC, 1999). A recommended depth of 50 feet should be explored and evaluated in the investigation. g . Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Measures: This project must comply with the City's Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Pol icy (Pol icy 6-29) which requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which includes site design measures, source controls and numerical ly-sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment

Page 17 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 17 of 29 ends

measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges.
i. The project9s Stormwater Control Plan and numeric sizing calculations have been reviewed and this project will be in conformance with City Policy 6-29 before building permit issuance. ii. Final inspection and maintenance information on the post-construction treatment control measures must be submitted prior to issuance of a Public Works Clearance. iii. A post construction Final Report is required by the Director of Public Works from a Civil Engineer retained by the owner to observe the installation of the BMPs and stating that all post construction storm water pollution control BMPs have been installed as indicated in the approved plans and all significant changes have been reviewed and approved in advance by the Department of Public Works.
iv. Media Filter Unit(s) located within Building footprints must conform to Building Division Directive P-005 located at the following:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=27405
v. Applicant will sign an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any stormwater media filters located outside the right-of-way, but treating public stormwater.

Stormwater Peak Flow Control Measures: The project is located in a non-Hydromodification Management area and is not required to comply with the City9s Post-Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14).

Flood Zone D: The project site is not within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. Flood Zone D is an unstudied area where flood hazards are undetermined, but flooding is possible. There are no City floodplain requirements for Zone D.

Sewage Fees: In accordance with City Ordinance all storm sewer area fees, sanitary sewer connection fees, and sewage treatment plant connection fees, less previous credits, are due and payable.

Parks: This residential project is subject to either the requirements of the City9s Park Impact Ordinance (Chapter 14.25 of Title 14 of the San Jose Municipal Code) or the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.38 of Title 19 of the San Jose Municipal Code) for the dedication of land and/or payment of fees in-lieu of dedication of land for public park and/or recreational purposes under the <Formula for Dedication of Land= and/or <Schedule of Fees and Credits= contained within in the chapter.

Street Improvements:
i. Construct curb, gutter, and 159 attached sidewalk with tree wells at back of curb along San Carlos Street frontage.
li. Construct curb, gutter, and 109 attached sidewalk with tree wells at back of curb along Gifford Avenue frontage.
il. Close unused driveway cuts.
iv. Construct a 269 driveway on Gifford Avenue per CSJ Standard Detail R-5. v. Install handicap ramp at the SW corner of San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. vi. Provide 3= conduit along San Carlos Street frontage to connect to future traffic signals.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 18 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 17 of 29 ends

1. The project's Stormwater Control Plan and numeric sizing calculations have been reviewed and this project will be in conformance with City Policy 6-29 before building permit issuance.

11. Final inspection and maintenance information on the post-construction treatment control measures must be submitted prior to issuance of a Public Works Clearance. 111. A post construction Final Report is required by the Director of Public Works from a Civil Engineer retained by the owner to observe the installation of the BMPs and stating that all post construction storm water pollution control BMPs have been installed as indicated in the approved plans and all significant changes have been reviewed and approved in advance by the Department of Public Works.
iv. Media Filter Unit(s) located within Building footprints must conform to Building Division Directive P-005 located at the following:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=27405
v. Applicant will sign an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any stormwater media filters located outside the right-of-way, but treating public stormwater. h. Stormwater Peak Flow Control Measures: The project is located in a 11011-Hydromodification Management area and is not required to comply with the City's Post-Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14).

1. Flood Zone D: The project site is not within a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. Flood Zone Dis an unstudied area where flood hazards are undetermined, but flooding is possible. There are no City floodplain requirements for Zone D.
j. Sewage Fees: In accordance with City Ordinance all storm sewer area fees, sanitary sewer connection fees, and sewage treatment plant connection fees, less previous credits, are due and payable.
k. Parks: This residential project is subject to either the requirements of the City's Park Impact Ordinance (Chapter 14.25 of Title 14 of the San Jose Municipal Code) or the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.38 of Title 19 of the San Jose Municipal Code) for the dedication of land and/or payment of fees in-lieu of dedication of land for public park and/or recreational purposes under the "Formula for Dedication of Land" and/or "Schedule of Fees and Credits" contained within in the chapter.

I. Street Improvements:

1. Construct curb, gutter, and 15' attached sidewalk with tree wel ls at back of curb along San Carlos Street frontage.

11. Construct curb, gutter, and 1 O' attached sidewalk with tree wells at back of curb along Gifford Avenue frontage.
111. Close unused driveway cuts.
iv. Construct a 26' driveway on Gifford Avenue per CSJ Standard Detail R-5. v. Install handicap ramp at the SW corner of San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. vi . Provide 3" conduit along San Carlos Street frontage to connect to future traffic signals.

Page 18 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 18 of 29 ends

vii. Contribute $55,000 towards future multi-modal pedestrian improvements. viii. Contribute $18,000 for signal upgrades for High-Visibility Backplates (HVBP) and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at San Carlos St & Delmas Ave. ix. Contribute $144/LF of W San Carlos frontage for future bike facility improvements per CSJ 2025 Better Bike Plan.
x. Coordinate with Address Assignment Staff (Sara. [email protected] Sr Bldg Permit Specialist) to change address assignment to San Carlos to eliminate inclusion in RPP. xi. Applicant shall be responsible to remove and replace curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction of the proposed project.
xii. Dedication and improvement of the public streets, as required, by the Director of Public Works in accordance with adopted standards in the City of San Jose Municipal Code Chapters 27.38 and/or 19.32.
xiii. Repair, overlay, or reconstruction of asphalt pavement may be required. The existing pavement will be evaluated with the street improvement plans and any necessary pavement restoration will be included as part of the final street improvement plans in accordance with adopted standards in the Section Chapter 13.36.030, Title 19 and Title 27 of the City of San Jose Municipal Codes.
m. Downtown Construction: This project is located within the General Plan Downtown Growth Area or the Diridon Station Area Plan and will be required to comply with the Downtown Construction Guidelines (DCG). The DCG is for all work in the Public Right-of-Way to support the safe and orderly movement of people and goods by providing standards. The DCG serves as a guideline related to permits, coordination, and traffic control devices to entities performing work in downtown streets. A copy of the DCG can be found at: - https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=56303.
n. Site Utilization Plan and Revocable Encroachment Permit (Street/Sidewalk Closures): At the Impleméntation stage, Developer shall provide to the Public Works Project Engineer a Site, Utilization Plan with the application of a Revocable Encroachment Permit for any proposed sidewalk and lane closures to support the onsite construction activities. i. The following should be included with the Site Utilization Plan and Revocable Permit application, but are not limited to:
1) Site Utilization Plan and Letter of Intent: The site utilization plan should provide a detailed plan of the location of the temporary facilities within the boundary of the construction site. The Letter of Intent should provide a description of operations of the site as well as the reasons for the sidewalk/lane closures and why the activities/uses that are proposed within the Public right-of-way can9t occur within the construction site.

These include the use of the right of way for temporary facilities and activities such as man lifts, baker tanks, staging area, concrete pumping activities, etc. The letter must also provide a detailed discussion if covered pedestrian walkways are infeasible (ex. swinging loads over the sidewalk are not safe for pedestrians).
2) Multi-Phased Site Specific Sketches: These sketches should show the phased closures during the course of construction with a provided timeframe estimate of when each phase would be implemented. These sketches should include the type and location of the work Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 19 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 18 ends

vii. Contribute $55,000 towards future multi-modal pedestrian improvements. viii. Contribute $1 8,000 for signal upgrades for High-Visibility Backplates (HVBP) and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at San Carlos St & Delmas Ave. ix. Contribute $1 44/LF of W San Carlos frontage for future bike facility improvements per CSJ 2025 Better Bike Plan.
x. Coordinate with Address Assignment Staff ([email protected] Sr Bldg Permit Specialist) to change address assignment to San Carlos to eliminate inclusion in RPP. xi. Applicant shall be responsible to remove and replace curb, gutter, and sidewalk damaged during construction of the proposed project.
xii. Dedication and improvement of the public streets, as required, by the Director of Public Works in accordance with adopted standards in the City of San Jose Municipal Code Chapters 27.38 and/or 19.32.
xiii. Repair, overlay, or reconstruction of asphalt pavement may be required. The existing pavement will be evaluated with the street improvement plans and any necessary pavement restoration will be included as part of the final street improvement plans in accordance with adopted standards in the Section Chapter 13 . 36.030, Title 19 and Title 27 of the City of San Jose Municipal Codes.
m. Downtown Construction: This project is located within the General Plan Downtown Growth Area or the Diridon Station Area Plan and will be required to comply with the Downtown Construction Guidelines (DCG). The DCG is for all work in the Public Right-of-Way to support the safe and orderly movement of people and goods by providing standards. The DCG serves as a guidel ine related to permits, coordination, and traffic control devices to entities performing work in downtown streets. A copy of the DCG can be found at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=56303 .
n. Site Utilization Plan and Revocable Encroachment Permit (Street/Sidewalk Closures): At the Implementation stage, Developer shall provide to the Public Works Project Engineer a Site Utilization Plan with the application of a Revocable Encroachment Permit for any proposed sidewalk and lane closures to support the onsite construction activities.

1. The following should be included with the Site Utilization Plan and Revocable Permit application, but are not limited to:
1) Site Utilization Plan and Letter of lntent: The site utilization plan should provide a detailed plan of the location of the temporary facilities within the boundary of the construction site. The Letter of Intent should provide a description of operations of the site as well as the reasons for the sidewalk/lane closures and why the activities/uses that are proposed within the Public right-of-way can't occur within the construction site.

These include the use of the right of way for temporary facilities and activities such as man lifts, baker tanks, staging area, concrete pumping activities, etc. The letter must also provide a detailed discussion if covered pedestrian walkways are infeasible (ex. swinging loads over the sidewalk are not safe for pedestrians).
2) Multi-Phased Site Specific Sketches: These sketches should show the phased closures during the course of construction with a provided tirneframe estimate of when each phase would be implemented. These sketches should include the type and location of the work

Page 19 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 19 of 29 ends

to be accomplished within the right-of-way. The exhibit should show in detail the vehicular and/or pedestrian diversion route that shows the appropriate safety equipment, such as barricades, cones, arrow boards, signage, etc.
ii. Developer shall minimize the potential impact to vehicular and pedestrian traffic by:
1) Implementing the closures at the time the onsite activities dictate the need for the closure.
2) Minimizing the closure timeframes to accomplish the onsite tasks and implement the next phase of the closure as outlined in condition a.ii above. iii. If the proposed lane and parking closures are a part of the Revocable Permit Application, Developer shall submit Downtown Lane Closure and Tow Away Permit Applications to DOT. These applications may be obtained at: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/?navid=1629.

Developer shall contact DOT at (408) 535-8350 for more information concerning the requirements of these applications.

Electrical: Existing electroliers along the project frontage will be evaluated at the public improvement stage and any street lighting requirements will be included on the public improvement plans.

Street Trees: The locations of the street trees will be determined at the street improvement stage. Contact the City Arborist at (408) 794-1901 for the designated street tree. Install street trees within public right-of-way along entire project street frontage per City standards; refer to the current <Guidelines for Planning, Design, and Construction of City Streetscape Projects=. Street trees shall be installed in park strip on Gifford Avenue and in cut-outs at the back of curb on San Carlos Street. Obtain a DOT street tree planting permit for any proposed street tree plantings. Street trees shown on this permit are conceptual only. i. Gifford Avenue: The recommended street trees are Tristaniopsis laurina planted 209 on center in tree wells.
ii. West San Carlos Street: The recommended street trees are Carpinus betulus 8Fastigiata9 planted 309 on center in tree wells.

38. Integrated Waste Management Division Clearance for Building Permit(s): Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with all outstanding requirements for solid waste management to the satisfaction of the Environmental Services Department 4 Integrated Waste Management Division. Any changes to the Approved Plans shall require the issuance of a Planning Permit Adjustment or Amendment. The following conditions must be satisfied:
a. Dumpster Staging: IWM staff are concerned with where the dumpsters will be staged for collection. This staging area is currently used for on-street parking. Permittee agrees to either pay haulers the premium rate for push/pull collection service or collaborate with the Department of Transportation and work out a schedule that will prevent cars from parking in the staging area. i. Prioritization of Trash Staging will be on West San Carlos Street. The following conditions will need to be satisfied:
1) Swap of the curb stripping on San Carlos, such that the loading zone is adjacent to the driveway where the trash will conceivably be wheeled out from, and 2) Commitment that dumpsters will be staged in the loading zone and not block a travel lane.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 20 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 19 ends

11. Developer shal l minimize the potential impact to vehicular and pedestrian traffic by:
1) Implementing the closures at the time the onsite activities dictate the need for the closure.
2) Minimizing the closure timeframes to accomplish the onsite tasks and implement the next phase of the closure as outlined in condition a.ii above. 111. If the proposed lane and parking closures are a part of the Revocable Permit Application, Developer shall submit Downtown Lane Closure and Tow Away Permit Applications to DOT. These applications may be obtained at: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/?navid= l629.

Developer shall contact DOT at (408) 535-8350 for more information concerning the requirements of these applications.
o. Electrical: Existing electroliers along the project frontage will be evaluated at the public improvement stage and any street lighting requirements will be included on the public improvement plans.
p. Street Trees: The locations of the street trees will be determined at the street improvement stage. Contact the City Arborist at (408) 794- 1901 for the designated street tree. Instal l street trees within public right-of-way along entire project street frontage per City standards; refer to the current "Guidelines for Planning, Design, and Construction of City Streetscape Projects". Street trees shall be installed in park strip on Gifford Avenue and in cut-outs at the back of curb on San Carlos Street. Obtain a DOT street tree planting permit for any proposed street tree plantings. Street trees shown on this permit are conceptual only.

1. Gifford Avenue: The recommended street trees are Tristaniopsis laurina planted 20' on center in tree wells.

11. West San Carlos Street: The recommended street trees are Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' planted 30' on center in tree wells.

1. Prioritization of Trash Staging will be on West San Carlos Street. The following conditions will need to be satisfied:
1) Swap of the curb stripping on San Carlos, such that the loading zone is adjacent to the driveway where the trash will conceivably be wheeled out from, and 2) Commitment that dumpsters wi ll be staged in the loading zone and not block a travel lane.

Page 20 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 20 of 29 ends

Please coordinate with Integrated Waste Management, Public Works, and Department of Transportation for this item.

39. Building Division Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the following requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official:
a.
b.
d.
e.

Construction Plans. This permit file number, H25-039, shall be printed on all construction plans submitted to the Building Division.

Americans with Disabilities Act. The Permittee shall provide appropriate access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Construction Plan Conformance. A project construction plan conformance review by the Planning Division is required. Planning Division review for project conformance begins with the initial plan check submittal to the Building Division. Prior to any building permit issuance, building permit plans shall conform to the approved Planning development permits and applicable conditions.

Project Addressing Plan. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official: The project Permittee shall submit an addressing plan for approval for the subject development. The addressing plan should include proposed street names for the streets (as referenced on an approved tentative map) and the type of addressing (i.e., individual street addresses as compared to unit numbers off of a primary street).

Other. Such other requirements as may be specified by the Chief Building Official.

40. Bureau of Fire Department Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the project must comply with the 2025 California Fire Code, or as may be amended or updated by the City.

41. Standard Environmental Permit Conditions.
a. SPC AIR-1: Bay Area Air District Dust Control Best Management Practices. The permittee shall include the following measures on approved construction plans and implement the following Bay Area Air District (Air District) dust control requirements during construction of the project:
i. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.
ii. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. il. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
iv. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles-per-hour. v. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vi. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles-per-hour.
vii. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 21 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 20 ends

Please coordinate with Integrated Waste Management, Public Works, and Department of Transportation for this item.

39. Building Division Clearance for Issuing Permits. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the following requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official :
a. Construction Plans. This permit file number, H25-039, shall be printed on all construction plans submitted to the Building Division.
b. Americans with Disabilities Act. The Permittee shall provide appropriate access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
c. Construction Plan Conformance. A project construction plan conformance review by the Planning Division is required. Planning Division review for project conformance begins with the initial plan check submittal to the Building Division. Prior to any building permit issuance, building permit plans shall conform to the approved Planning development permits and applicable conditions.
d. Project Addressing Plan. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official : The project Permittee shall submit an addressing plan for approval for the subject development. The addressing plan should include proposed street names for the streets (as referenced on an approved tentative map) and the type of addressing (i.e., individual street addresses as compared to unit numbers off of a primary street).
e. Other. Such other requirements as may be specified by the Chief Building Official.

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shal l be watered two times a day.

11. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. iii. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
1v. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shal l be limited to 15 miles-per-hour. v. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vi . All excavation, grading, and/or demol ition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles-per-hour.
vii. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

Page 21 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 21 of 29 ends

viii. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. ix. Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (a five-minute limit is required by the State airborne toxics control measure [Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at all access points to the site.
x. Low volatile organic compounds (i.e., reactive organic gases) coatings that are used shall comply with the Air District9s Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings. xi. Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer9s specifications. Check all equipment by a certified mechanic and record a determination of running in proper condition prior to operation.

SPC AIR-2: Tier 4 Final Equipment. The permittee shall commit to using Tier 4 Final (or equivalent) equipment.

Construction Equipment Air Quality Controls. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the permittee shall submit a Construction Operations Plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director9s designee that includes information in sufficient detail as to how the permittee and/or its contractor shall meet the following equipment requirements. The plan shall include the following information: 1) Type of equipment, 2) engine year and age, 3) number of years since rebuild of engine (if applicable), 4) type of fuel used, 5) engine horsepower, and 6) Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy information, if applicable, and other related equipment data.

The Construction Operations Plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist confirming construction equipment will meet the criteria outlined below. i. Engine Requirements: Verification that the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth below:
1) All construction equipment (larger than 25 horsepower) shall, at a minimum, meet U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 final or interim emission standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).
2) Use of alternatively fueled or electric equipment that achieves a comparable reduction of diesel particulate matter, PM10, and PM2.5 as equipment that meets Tier 4 final or interim emission standards.
ii. Exceptions: If Tier 4 equipment is not available, all construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower shall meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to California Air Resources Board Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieves a comparable reduction of diesel particulate matter, PM10, and PM2.5 as equipment that meets Tier 4 final or interim emission standards.
1) As an alternative to the measures above, the permittee may request a plan from a qualified air quality specialist that reduces on- and near-site construction diesel particulate matter emissions from the project that would result in a comparable reduction of DPM, PM10, and PM2,5 as equipment that meets Tier 4 final or interim emission standards. The plan Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 22 File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 21 of 29 ends

SPC AIR-2: Tier 4 Final Equipment. The permittee shall commit to using Tier 4 Final (or equivalent) equipment.

Page 21 ends

viii. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. ix. Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (a five-minute limit is required by the State airborne toxics control measure [Title 13 , Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at al l access points to the site.
x. Low volatile organic compounds (i.e., reactive organic gases) coatings that are used shall comply with the Air District's Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings. xi. Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Check all equipment by a certified mechanic and record a determination of running in proper condition prior to operation.
b. SPC AIR-2: Tier 4 Final Equipment. The permittee shall commit to using Tier 4 Final (or equivalent) equipment.

Construction Equipment Air Quality Controls. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or bui lding permits (whichever occurs earliest), the pennittee shall submit a Construction Operations Plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director's designee that includes information in sufficient detail as to how the permittee and/or its contractor shall meet the following equipment requirements. The plan shall include the following information: 1) Type of equipment, 2) engine year and age, 3) number of years since rebuild of engine (if appl icable), 4) type of fuel used, 5) engine horsepower, and 6) Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy information, if applicable, and other related equipment data.

The Construction Operations Plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist confirming construction equipment will meet the criteria outlined below.

1. Engine Requirements: Verification that the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth below:

I) All construction equipment (larger than 25 horsepower) shall, at a minimum, meet U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 final or interim emission standards for particulate matter (PM ] O and PM2.5).
2) Use of alternatively fueled or electric equipment that achieves a comparable reduction of diesel particulate matter, PM 10, and PM2.5 as equipment that meets Tier 4 fi nal or interim emission standards.

11. Exceptions: If Tier 4 equipment is not avai lable, all construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower shal l meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to Cal ifornia Air Resources Board Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieves a comparable reduction of diesel particulate matter, PM 10, and PM2.5 as equipment that meets Tier 4 final or interim emission standards.
1) As an alternative to the measures above, the permittee may request a plan from a qualified air qual ity special ist that reduces on- and near-site construction diesel particulate matter emissions from the proj ect that would result in a comparable reduction of DPM, PM 10, and PM2.5 as equipment that meets Tier 4 final or interim emission standards. The plan

Page 22 ends

lil.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 22 of 29 ends

shall be submitted to the City of San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any tree removal, demolition, grading, or building permits (whichever occurs earliest). 2) Limits on Idling Time: The permittee shall require the idling time for off-road and onroad equipment be limited to no more than two minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable State regulations regarding idling for off-road and on-road equipment.

Legible and visible signs shall be posted in English and Spanish in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to remind operators of the two-minute idling limit.

Certification: A Certification Statement shall be provided by the permittee for documentation of compliance and for future review by the Bay Area Air District and City of San José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee, as necessary. The Certification Statement shall state that the permittee will ensure that their construction contractor will comply with the conditions above and acknowledges that this requirement is also a condition of project approval.

SPC AIR-3: Implement Enhanced Dust Control] Best Management Practices. The permittee shall implement the following Bay Area Air District enhanced best management practices for dust control measures and include the measures on all approved construction plans:

1. iL.
ili.

Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities.Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
. Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site.

Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days.

SPC AIR-4: Construction Air Quality Health Risk Assessment. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permits, the permittee shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare an assessment demonstrating that none of the following would occur:
i.
iL.
ill.

Total diesel particulate matter emissions are less than 65 pounds and the nearest receptors are single-family residences;
Total diesel particulate matter emissions are less than 24 pounds and the nearest receptors are multi-family residences; and
The nearest sensitive receptors are more than 200 feet downwind from the project. . If the Construction Air Quality Health Risk Assessment demonstrates that these conditions are satisfied, a Construction Air Quality Health Risk and Construction Criteria Assessment (SPC AIR-5) would not be required for the project. The applicant shall submit the Construction Air Quality Health Risk Assessment to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 23 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 22 ends

shall be submitted to the City of San Jose Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any tree removal, demolition, grading, or building permits (whichever occurs earliest). 2) Limits on Idling Time : The permittee shall require the idling time for off-road and onroad equipment be limited to no more than two minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable State regulations regarding idling for off-road and on-road equipment.

Legible and visible signs shall be posted in English and Spanish in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to remind operators of the two-minute idling limit. iii. Certification: A Certification Statement shall be provided by the permittee for documentation of compliance and for future review by the Bay Area Air District and City of San Jose Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee, as necessary. The Certification Statement shall state that the pennittee will ensure that their construction contractor will comply with the conditions above and acknowledges that this requirement is also a condition of proj ect approval.
c. SPC AIR-3: Implement Enhanced Dust Control Best Management Practices. The permittee shall implement the following Bay Area Air District enhanced best management practices for dust control measures and include the measures on all approved construction plans:

1. Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities.Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

11. Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 111. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
iv. Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site. v. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days. d. SPC AIR-4: Construction Air Quality Health Risk Assessment. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permits, the permittee shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare an assessment demonstrating that none of the following would occur:

1. Total diesel particulate matter emissions are less than 65 pounds and the nearest receptors are single-family residences;

11. Total diesel particulate matter emissions are less than 24 pounds and the nearest receptors are multi-family residences; and
111. The nearest sensitive receptors are more than 200 feet downwind from the project. iv. If the Construction Air Qual ity Health Risk Assessment demonstrates that these conditions are satisfied, a Construction Air Quality Health Risk and Construction Criteria Assessment (SPC AIR-5) would not be required for the project. The applicant shall submit the Construction Air Quality Health Risk Assessment to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of

Page 23 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 23 of 29 ends

any demolition, grading and/or building permit.

SPC BIO-3: Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The project may be subject to applicable Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SC VHP) conditions and fees (including the nitrogen deposition fee) prior to issuance of any ground disturbance permits. The permittee shall submit the SCVHP Coverage Screening Form to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for approval and payment of all applicable fees prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits. The SCVHP and supporting materials can be viewed at https://scv-habitatagency.org.

SPC CUL-1: Human Remains. If any human remains are found during any field investigations, grading, or other construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, shall be followed. If human remains are discovered during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The permittee shall immediately notify the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee and the qualified archaeologist, who shall then notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. The Coroner will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the remains are believed to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission will then designate a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant will inspect the remains and make a recommendation on the treatment of the remains and associated artifacts. If one of the following conditions occurs, the landowner or their authorized representative shall work with the Coroner to reinter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
i. The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site.
il. The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or iii. The landowner or their authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

SPC CUL-2: Subsurface Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee and the City9s Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist in consultation with a Native American Tribal representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3 shall examine the find. The archaeologist in consultation with the Tribal representative shall 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and (2) make appropriate recommendations regarding the disposition of such finds prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee, the City9s Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural materials.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 24 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
any demolition, grading and/or building permit.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 23 of 29 ends

e. SPC BIO-3: Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The project may be subject to applicable Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) conditions and fees (including the nitrogen deposition fee) prior to issuance of any ground disturbance permits. The permittee shall submit the SCVHP Coverage Screening Form to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for approval and payment of all applicable fees prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permits. The SCVHP and supporting materials can be viewed at https://scv-habitatagency.org.
f. SPC CUL-1 : Human Remains. If any human remains are found during any field investigations, grading, or other construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, shall be followed. If human remains are discovered during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The permittee shall immediately notify the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee and the qualified archaeologist, who shall then notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. The Coroner wi ll make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the remains are believed to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission will then designate a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant will inspect the remains and make a recommendation on the treatment of the remains and associated artifacts. If one of the following conditions occurs, the landowner or their authorized representative shall work with the Coroner to reinter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

1. The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site.

11. The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or 111. The landowner or their authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. g . SPC CUL-2 : Subsurface Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee and the City's Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified, and a qual ified archaeologist in consultation with a Native American Tribal representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San Jose and that is traditionally and cultural ly affil iated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21 080.3 shall examine the find. The archaeologist in consultation with the Tribal representative shall 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and (2) make appropriate recommendations regarding the disposition of such finds prior to issuance of bui lding permits. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee, the City's Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural materials.

Page 24 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 24 of 29 ends

h. SPC TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training and Monitoring. Prior to issuance of any tree removal, demolition or grading permits, whichever occurs first, the permittee shall be required to submit evidence that a Cultural Awareness Training has been provided to construction personnel prior to ground disturbance, such as copies of worker sign-in sheets to confirm attendance. The training shall be facilitated by a qualified project archaeologist in collaboration with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3. Documentation verifying that Cultural Awareness Training has been conducted including training attendance logs and training materials shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee. Cultural Awareness Training shall be provided to any construction personnel who join the project after the original training session in accordance with the requirements of this condition. In addition, a qualified archaeologist in collaboration with a Native American monitor registered with the NAHC for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, shall be present during applicable earthmoving activities (e.g., trenching, initial or full grading, lifting of foundation, boring on site, or major landscaping, etc.). If the consulting tribe or Native American representative registered with the NAHC for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in PRC Section 21080.3 does not respond to a request for monitoring within 30 days, then earthmoving activities can proceed.
i. SPC GEO-1: Seismic Hazards. A Geotechnical Report shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City Geologist. The Geotechnical Report shall determine the site-specific soil conditions and identify the appropriate design and construction techniques to minimize risks to people and structures, including but not limited to: foundation, earthwork, utility trenching, retaining and drainage recommendations. The investigation should be consistent with State of California guidelines for the preparation of seismic hazard evaluation reports (California Geological Survey Special Publication 117A, 2008, and the Southern California Earthquake Center report 1999). A recommended minimum depth of 50 feet should be explored and evaluated in the investigation. The City Geologist will review the Geotechnical Report and issue a Geologic Clearance.
i. All excavation and grading work shall be scheduled in dry weather months or construction sites shall be weatherized.
ii. Stockpiles and excavated soils shall be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting. iii. Ditches shall be installed to divert runoff around excavations and graded areas if necessary. iv. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the standard engineering practices in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of San José. A grading permit from the San José Department of Public Works shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance. These standard practices would ensure that the future building on the site is designed to properly account for soils-related hazards on the site. v. If dewatering is needed, the design-level geotechnical investigations to be prepared for individual future development projects shall evaluate the underlying sediments and determine the potential for settlements to occur. If it is determined that unacceptable settlements may occur, then alternative groundwater control systems shall be required.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 25 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 24 ends

1. SPC GE0-1: Seismic Hazards. A Geotechnical Report shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City Geologist. The Geotechnical Report shall determine the site-specific soil conditions and identify the appropriate design and construction techniques to minimize risks to people and structures, including but not limited to : foundation, earthwork, utility trenching, retaining and drainage recommendations. The investigation should be consistent with State of California guidelines for the preparation of seismic hazard evaluation reports (California Geological Survey Special Publication 11 7A, 2008, and the Southern California Earthquake Center report 1999). A recommended minimum depth of 50 feet should be explored and evaluated in the investigation. The City Geologist will review the Geotechnical Report and issue a Geologic Clearance.

1. All excavation and grading work shal l be scheduled in dry weather months or construction sites shall be weatherized.

11. Stockpiles and excavated soils shall be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting. iii. Ditches shall be installed to divert runoff around excavations and graded areas if necessary. iv. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the standard engineering practices in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of San Jose. A grading permit from the San Jose Department of Public Works shal l be obtained prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance. These standard practices would ensure that the future building on the site is designed to properly account for soils-related hazards on the site. v. If dewatering is needed, the design-level geotechnical investigations to be prepared for individual future development projects shall evaluate the underlying sediments and determine the potential for settlements to occur. If it is determined that unacceptable settlements may occur, then alternative groundwater control systems shall be required.

Page 25 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 25 of 29 ends

j. SPC GEO-2: Paleontological Resources. If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site shall stop immediately, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director9s designee shall be notified, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The permittee shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee.
k. Haz-1.1: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the applicant must enter into the Santa Clara County Department of Environment Health (SCCDEH) Site Cleanup Program (SCP) to obtain regulatory oversight from SCCDEH. Any further investigation and remedial actions must be performed under regulatory oversight to mitigate the contamination and make the site suitable for the proposed residential development. A report of the findings and of applicable regulatory oversight shall be provided to the Supervising Planner of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the Municipal Compliance Officer of the City of San José Environmental Services Department for review. |. SPC HYD-1: Construction-related Water Quality. Construction-related water quality measures shall include the following:
i. Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sedimen and other debris away from the drains.
ii. Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high winds.
iii. All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary.
iv. Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be watered or covered.
v. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered and all trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
vi. All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). vii. Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible. viii. All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to remove mud from tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system shall be installed if requested by the City. ix. The permittee shall comply with the City of San José Grading Ordinance, including implementing erosion and dust control during site preparation and with the City of San José Zoning Ordinance requirements for keeping adjacent streets free of dirt and mud during construction.
m. SPC NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction Measures. Noise minimization measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 26 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 25 of 29 ends

I. SPC HYD-1 : Construction-related Water Quality. Construction-related water quality measures shall include the following:

1. Burlap bags fi lled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sedimen and other debris away from the drains.

11. Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high winds.
111. All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary.
iv. Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be watered or covered.
v. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered and all trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
v1. All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). vii. Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible. viii. All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to remove mud from tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system shal l be installed if requested by the City. ix. The permittee shall comply with the City of San Jose Grading Ordinance, including implementing erosion and dust control during site preparation and with the City of San Jose Zoning Ordinance requirements for keeping adjacent streets free of dirt and mud during construction.
m. SPC NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction Measu res. Noise minimization measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

Page 26 ends

il.
lil.
iv.

Vi.

Vil.

Vill.

Xi.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 26 of 29 ends

Pile driving is prohibited.

Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday for any on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit (San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.450). Weekend construction hours, including staging of vehicles, equipment and construction materials, shall be limited to Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific <Construction Noise Mitigation Plan= and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director9s designee that the Construction Noise Mitigation Plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses.

Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.

Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (no more than two minutes).

Locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.

Control noise from construction workers9 radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.

Utilize <quiet= air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. . Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of <noisy= construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences.

If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites.

Designate a 9disturbance coordinator= who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

SPC NOI-2: Enhanced Noise Reduction Measures for Extended Construction Hours. The permittee shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare a site-specific, quantitative Construction Noise Assessment. In addition, to implementing the standard Construction Noise Reduction Measures (SPC NOI-1), the permittee shall include, but are not limited to, the following enhanced Construction Noise Reduction Measures:
ie Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites located adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses. Typically, a temporary eight-foot-tall noise barrier fence having a minimum surface density of two pounds per Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 27 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing

1. Pile driving is prohibited.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 26 ends

11. Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday for any on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit (San Jose Municipal Code Section 20.1 00.450). Weekend construction hours, including staging of vehicles, equipment and construction materials, shall be limited to Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific "Construction Noise Mitigation Plan" and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director's designee that the Construction Noise Mitigation Plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses.
111. Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses. iv. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. v. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (no more than two minutes). vi. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
vii. Control noise from construction workers' radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
viii. Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. ix. Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of "noisy" construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences. x. If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites.
xi. Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. n. SPC NOI-2 : Enhanced Noise Reduction Measures for Extended Construction Hours. The permittee shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare a site-specific, quantitative Construction Noise Assessment. In addition, to implementing the standard Construction Noise Reduction Measures (SPC NOI- 1), the permittee shall include, but are not limited to, the following enhanced Construction Noise Reduction Measures:

1. Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites located adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses. Typically, a temporary eight-foot-tall noise barrier fence having a minimum surface density of two pounds per

Page 27 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 27 of 29 ends

square foot (Ibs/ft2), such as 3/4-inch plywood, would provide a minimum attenuation of five A-weighted decibel for adjacent land uses when construction activities occur at the ground level, assuming no cracks or gaps.
ii. If complaints are received and excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites shall be erected.
iii. Substitute nail guns for manual hammering, where feasible. iv. Substitute electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible. v. The contractor shall use <new technology= power construction equipment with state-of-theart noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate intake and exhaust mufflers and shall be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components. Utilize <quiet= air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
vi. The applicant shall submit the site-specific, quantitative Construction Noise Assessment to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permit.

SPC NOI-6: Mechanical Equipment Noise: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to meet the City9s 55 day-night average sound level (ABA DNL) noise level requirement at the nearby noise-sensitive land uses. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review the mechanical noise equipment to determine specific noise reduction measures needed to reduce equipment noise to comply with the City9s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Other alternate measures include locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas (such as along the building facades farthest from the nearest residences or sensitive receptors), where feasible. The findings and recommendations from the acoustical consultant for noise reduction measures shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director9s designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits.

SPC VIB-1: Non-pile Driving within 30 feet. The permittee shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare a site-specific, quantitative Vibration Assessment. The permittee shall be required to implement the following Vibration Reduction Control Measures:
i. A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g., tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted by the contractor to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that may generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort required to reduce vibration levels below the thresholds.
ii. Place operating equipment on the construction site as faras possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 28 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 27 of 29 ends

square foot (lbs/ft2), such as 3/4-inch plywood, would provide a minimum attenuation of five A-weighted decibel for adjacent land uses when construction activities occur at the ground level, assuming no cracks or gaps.

11. If complaints are received and excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites shall be erected.
111. Substitute nail guns for manual hammering, where feasible. iv. Substitute electrically powered tools for noisier pneumatic tools, where feasible. v. The contractor shall use "new technology" power construction equipment with state-of-theart noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site shall be equipped with adequate intake and exhaust mufflers and shal l be in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines or other components. Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
vi. The applicant shall submit the site-specific, quantitative Construction Noise Assessment to the Director of Planning, Bui lding and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permit. o. SPC NOI-6: Mechanical Equipment Noise: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to meet the City's 55 day-night average sound level (dBA DNL) noise level requirement at the nearby noise-sensitive land uses. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review the mechanical noise equipment to determine specific noise reduction measures needed to reduce equipment noise to comply with the City's noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Other alternate measures include locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas (such as along the building facades farthest from the nearest residences or sensitive receptors), where feasible. The findings and recommendations from the acoustical consultant for noise reduction measures shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director's designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. p. SPC VIB-1 : Non-pile Driving within 30 feet. The permittee shal l retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare a site-specific, quantitative Vibration Assessment. The permittee shall be required to implement the following Vibration Reduction Control Measures:

1. A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g., tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, j ackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted by the contractor to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that may generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort required to reduce vibration levels below the thresholds.

11. Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.

Page 28 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 28 of 29 ends

iii. Smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) shall be used near the property lines or adjacent sensitive buildings to minimize vibration levels. For example, a smaller vibratory roller similar to a Caterpillar model CP433E vibratory compactor could be used when compacting materials within 30 feet of sensitive buildings. The smaller equipment intended to implement this requirement shall be individually identified among the list of equipment required under the above condition as a subset of equipment allowed for use at the property lines. iv. Avoid dropping heavy equipment and using vibratory rollers within 30 feet of sensitive structures. Use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder, instead of dropping heavy objects, within 30 feet of structurally sensitive buildings.

Select demolition methods that do not involve large impact tools, such as hoe-rams, within 30 feet of sensitive buildings. Portable jackhammers, saws, or grinders shall be used to minimize impacts to the ground.
v. The applicant shall submit the site-specific, quantitative Vibration Assessment to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permit.

42. Vibration Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, which occurs first, the applicant shall implement a vibrations monitoring plan to document conditions during construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry-accepted standard methods. The Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director9s designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks:
a. Identification of sensitivity to groundborne vibration of nearby structures within 30 feet of the project site. A vibration survey (generally described below) would need to be performed; Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each of these structures. Surveys shall be performed prior to any pile driving activity, at regular intervals during pile driving, and after completion, and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls, and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures; Development of a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structurespecific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after pile driving. Alternative construction methods would be identified for when vibration levels approach the limits that are stated in the General Plan, such as Policy EC2.3; If vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement alternative construction methods to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures; Conduct post-survey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage have been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities; The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of construction activities identified in the project schedule. The Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 29 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 28 ends

111. Smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) shall be used near the property lines or adjacent sensitive buildings to minimize vibration levels. For example, a smaller vibratory roller similar to a Caterpillar model CP433E vibratory compactor could be used when compacting materials within 30 feet of sensitive buildings. The smaller equipment intended to implement this requirement shall be individually identified among the list of equipment required under the above condition as a subset of equipment allowed for use at the property lines. iv. Avoid dropping heavy equipment and using vibratory rollers within 30 feet of sensitive structures. Use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder, instead of dropping heavy objects, within 30 feet of structurally sensitive buildings.

Select demolition methods that do not involve large impact tools, such as hoe-rams, within 30 feet of sensitive buildings. Portable jackhammers, saws, or grinders shall be used to minimize impacts to the ground.
v. The applicant shall submit the site-specific, quantitative Vibration Assessment to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading and/or building permit.

42. Vibration Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, which occurs first, the applicant shall implement a vibrations monitoring plan to document conditions during construction activities. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry-accepted standard methods. The Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director's designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks:
a. Identification of sensitivity to groundborne vibration of nearby structures within 30 feet of the project site. A vibration survey (generally described below) would need to be performed; b. Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each of these structures. Surveys shall be performed prior to any pile driving activity, at regular intervals during pile driving, and after completion, and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls, and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures; c. Development of a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structurespecific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after pile driving. Alternative construction methods would be identified for when vibration levels approach the limits that are stated in the General Plan, such as Pol icy EC2.3; d. If vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement alternative construction methods to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures; e. Conduct post-survey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage have been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities; f. The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report shortly after substantial completion of construction activities identified in the project schedule. The

Page 29 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 29 of 29 ends

report will include descriptions of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics, as required, to clearly identify vibration-monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits will be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims;
Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration.

The contact information of such a person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

43. Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Site Development Permit may be revoked, suspended, or modified by the Planning Director, or by the Planning Commission on appeal, at any time regardless of who is the owner of the subject property or who has the right to possession thereof or who is using the same at such time, whenever, after a noticed hearing in accordance with Part 3, Chapter 20.44, Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code it finds:
a. A violation of any conditions of the Site Development Permit was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or A violation of any City ordinance or State law was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or
The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.

APPROVED and issued on this 22nd day of July, 2026.

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Director
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
SMA
Deputy
Sylvia Do
Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 30 File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 29 of 29 ends

The contact information of such a person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

APPROVED and issued on this 22nd day of July, 2026.

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Director
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
SMA
Deputy
Sylvia Do
Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 30 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 29 ends

report will include descriptions of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics, as required, to clearly identify vibration-monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits will be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims;
g. Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration.

The contact information of such a person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

43. Revocation, Suspension, Modification. This Site Development Permit may be revoked, suspended, or modified by the Planning Director, or by the Planning Commission on appeal, at any time regardless of who is the owner of the subject property or who has the right to possession thereof or who is using the same at such time, whenever, after a noticed hearing in accordance with Part 3, Chapter 20.44, Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code it finds:
a. A violation of any conditions of the Site Development Permit was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or b. A violation of any City ordinance or State law was not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified on the notice of violation; or
c. The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.

APPROVED and issued on this 22nd day of July, 2026.

Page 30 ends

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Director
Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
Deputy
Sylvia Do
Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 1 ends

THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
325 Gifford Ave, San Jose, CA 95126
JANURARY 30, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 2 ends

Gifford Ave

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A PRIVATELY-FUNDED 8-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH GROUND-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 84'-10 1/2" FROM GRADE PLAN TO AVERAGE ROOF HEIGHT 1. STEPBACK PLANE PROJECT IS ONE BUILDING CONSISTING OF THE ELEMENTS DESCRIBED BELOW. THE PROJECT FALLS (BUILDING HEIGHT MEASUREMENT: BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2025 CBC SECTION REQUIRED: PER THE DIRIDON STATION AREA PLAN (MAY 25, 2021), THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE LOT LINE STEPBACK PLANE PER FIGURE 2-4-7. THE DRAWING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ALSO WITHIN THE DIRIDON AREA 202, DEFINITIONS OF “BUILDING HEIGHT” AND “GRADE PLANE,” AND EVALUATED FOR ALLOWABLE HEIGHT UNDER EAST PROPERTY LINE IS SHARED WITH AN ADJACENT LOT AND HAS A 0’ SETBACK PER ZONING. A STEPBACK PLANE MUST BEGIN AT 35’ IN HEIGHT WITH A 6’ STEPBACK PLANNING-SHEETS SPECIFIC PLAN. 2025 CBC SECTION 504.3 AND TABLE 504.3) WITHIN A 75-DEGREE ANGLE FROM HORIZONTAL. AP0.00 PROJECT INFORMATION • A 5-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF TYPE III-A WOOD-FRAMED CONSTRUCTION OVER 3 LEVELS OF TYPE I-A OCCUPANCY GROUPS: PROPOSED: THE PROJECT PROVIDES A 10’ STEPBACK BEGINNING AT 15’ IN HEIGHT. AP0.01 SITE CONTEXT MIXED OCCUPANCY METAL-FRAMED CONSTRUCTION. RESIDENTIAL R-2 JUSTIFICATION: FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STEPBACK PLANE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE UNIT SIZES ON FLOORS 6 THROUGH 8, RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF 8 UNITS • 276 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, SEE STATISTICS BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION. BUSINESS B AP0.02 OPEN SPACE CALCULATION AS DESIGNED. • TOTAL PARKING CONSISTS OF UP TO 220 SPACES AT GROUND-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE, WHICH UTILIZES STORAGE (GARAGE) S-2 AP0.15 EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 1 MECHANICAL PARKING STACKERS AND ASSOCIATED PIT. ASSEMBLY (COURTYARD) A-3

2. SKYLINE LEVEL MASSING AP0.16 EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 2 ZONING: DC (DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: REQUIRED: PER THE SAN JOSÉ DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (OCTOBER 4, 2022), SECTION 4.3.2, FOR FACADES ABOVE 70’ AND WIDER THAN 200’, AP0.17 EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 3 R-2 TYPE III-A, FULLY SPINKLERED URBAN VILLAGE: DIRIDON STATION AREA PLAN R-2, B, S-2 , A-3 TYPE I-A, FULLY SPINKLERED PROJECTS MUST INCLUDE A CHANGE IN MASSING (STEPBACK OR NOTCH) AT LEAST 30’ WIDE AND 20’ DEEP TO REDUCE APPARENT BULK. THE GIFFORD AVENUE FACA AP0.18 EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 4-7 APPROXIMATELY 230’, REQUIRING SUCH A NOTCH. AP0.19 EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 8 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SAN JOSE DOWNTOWN - DESIGN GUILDLINE AND STANDARDS ALLOWABLE GROSS FLOOR AREA / HEIGHTS / CONSTRUCTION TYPES PROPOSED: THE PROJECT PROVIDES A NOTCH 38’ WIDE BY 3’ DEEP ALONG GIFFORD AVENUE. AP0.20 EGRESS DIAGRAM - ROOF HEIGHT / BULK: 110' (PER DIRIDON STATION AREA PLAN) BASE ALLOWABLE AREA PER FLOOR PER CBC TABLE 506.2 FOR TYPE I-A: JUSTIFICATION: PROVIDING THE REQUIRED 30’ X 20’ NOTCH WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AT LEAST 6 UNITS AS DESIGNED.

S-2 UNLIMITED S.F. AP0.22 ALLOWABLE OPENINGS DIAGRAM - PLANS PROJECT LOCATION: 466 W SAN CARLOS ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 B UNLIMITED S.F. 3. BALCONIES (PRIVATE OPEN SPACE) AP0.23 ALLOWABLE OPENINGS DIAGRAM - ELEVATIONS (325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126) R-2 UNLIMITED S.F.

A-3 UNLIMITED S.F. REQUIRED: PER THE SAN JOSE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (OCTOBER 4, 2022), SECTION 4.4.2.C, AT LEAST 50% OF PODIUM-LEVEL (BELOW 70') AP0.25 FIRE DEPARTMENT VARIANCE BASE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT & STORIES PER CBC TABLE 504.3 FOR TYPE I-A: STREET-FACING RESIDENTIAL UNITS MUST INCLUDE BALCONIES. EACH BALCONY MUST BE AT LEAST 4' DEEP BY 20' ARCHITECTURE-SHEETS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 264-20-133 S-2 UNLIMITED WIDE. B UNLIMITED AP1.00 SITE PLAN LOT AREA: 38,964 SF (0.89 ACRE) R-2 UNLIMITED PROPOSED: THE PROJECT PROVIDES 20 BALCONIES ALONG GIFFORD AVENUE AND W. SAN CARLOS STREET, EACH APPROXIMATELY 6'-6" DEEP BY 12' WIDE. AP2.01 FLOOR 1 - PLAN A-3 UNLIMITED JUSTIFICATION: OF THE 81 PODIUM-LEVEL STREET-FACING UNITS ALONG GIFFORD AVENUE AND W. SAN CARLOS STREET, STRICT 50% COMPLIANCE WOULD REQUIRE AT AP2.02 FLOOR 2 - PLAN LEAST 41 QUALIFYING BALCONIES. THE PROJECT PROVIDES 20 BALCONIES AT APPROXIMATELY 6'-6" BY 12', OR APPROXIMATELY 1,560 SF OF BALCONY AREA. FULL GROSS FLOOR AREA: 232,003 S.F. BASE ALLOWABLE AREA PER FLOOR PER CBC TABLE 506.2 FOR TYPE III-A:

R-2 24,000 S.F. COMPLIANCE WOULD REQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 3,280 SF OF BALCONY AREA, RESULTING IN AN ADDITIONAL BALCONY AREA SHORTFALL OF APPROXIMATELY 1,720 SF AP2.03 FLOOR 3 - PLAN BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY PROVIDED. USING THE PROJECT'S APPROXIMATELY 420 SF STUDIO MODULE, THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIRED BALCONY AREA IS EQUIVALENT TO AP2.04 FLOOR 4 & 6 - PLAN PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA BASE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT & STORIES PER CBC TABLES 504.3 & 504.4 FOR TYPE III-A: EQUIVALENTS. FULL COMPLIANCE WOULD THEREFORE PHYSICALLY PRECLUDE THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED BY REDUCING RESIDENTIAL YIELD AND MAKING THE AFFECTED AP2.05 FLOOR 5 & 7 - PLAN R-2 85 FEET / 5 STORIES UNIT LAYOUTS INFEASIBLE. FLOOR OCCUPANCY GROSS AREA AP2.06 FLOOR 8 - PLAN FLOOR B1 GARAGE PIT S-2 10,554 SF FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS: AP2.07 ROOF - PLAN FLOOR 1 RESIDENTIAL R-2/A-3/S-2 36,222 SF 4. GROUND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL SPACE FLOOR 2 RESIDENTIAL R-2/A-3 27,637 SF 3 HOUR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN TYPE I-A & TYPE III-A REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 510.2 REQUIRED AP3.00 NORTH/ WEST BUILDING ELEVATION : PER THE SAN JOSÉ DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (OCTOBER 4, 2022), SECTION 5.3.3, GROUND-FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS MUST BE FLOOR 3 RESIDENTIAL R-2 25,636 SF HORIZONTAL BUILDING SEPARATION ALLOWANCE FLOOR 4 RESIDENTIAL R-2 28,839 SF ELEVATED 2’ TO 3’ ABOVE GRADE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM THE PUBLIC SPACE. AP3.02 SOUTH/ EAST ELEVATION FLOOR 5 RESIDENTIAL R-2 28,839 SF FOR TYPE I-A CONSTRUCTION: FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS PER TABLE PROPOSED: THE PROJECT PROVIDES GROUND-FLOOR UNIT ENTRIES AT GRADE LEVEL ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE. AP3.10 MATERIAL BOARD FLOOR 6 RESIDENTIAL R-2 28,839 SF 601: JUSTIFICATION: RAISING GROUND-FLOOR UNITS WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR RAMPS TO MAINTAIN ACCESSIBILITY, CONSUMING VALUABLE AP3.11 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS FLOOR 8 RESIDENTIAL R-2 27,152 SF STRUCTURAL FRAME 3-HR REDUCE TO 1 1/2-HR FOR ROOF SUPPORT BUILDING SPACE RESULTING IN A REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE EQUIVALENT TO 1 UNIT, AND REDUCING DESIGN EFFICIENCY AS DESIGNED. FLOOR 7 RESIDENTIAL R-2 28,839 SF AP3.12 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS 3-HR
TOTAL 232,003 S.F. (EXCLUDING GARAGE) INTERIOR BEARING WALLS 3-HR REDUCE TO 1 1/2-HR FOR ROOF SUPPORT AP3.20 SECTIONS 5. PODIUM LEVEL MASSING INT. NONBEARING WALLS 0-HR AP3.21 SECTIONS NOTE: AREA MEASURED TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING WALLS, INCLUDING DECKS THAT ARE NOT FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 2-HR REQUIRED: PER THE SAN JOSÉ DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (OCTOBER 4, 2022), SECTION 4.3.1, PODIUM-LEVEL BUILDING MASSING FACING A PUBLIC OPEN TO THE SKY. EXCLUDES PORTIONS OF DECKS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE FACE OF THE BUILDING. ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1 1/2-HR SPACE THAT RESULTS IN A FAÇADE WIDER THAN 100 FEET MUST BE DIVIDED INTO VISIBLY ARTICULATED SMALLER MASSES NO WIDER THAN 80 FEET. THIS MAY AP4.00 UNIT PLANS NO DEDUCTIONS FOR SHAFTS OR STAIRWAYS. BEACHIEVED THROUGH PROJECTIONS AND RECESSES, MATERIAL CHANGES, SHADOW RELIEF, OR OTHER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS. AP5.00 DETAILS TYPE III-A CONSTRUCTION: FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS PER TABLE 601: PROPOSED: THE PROJECT INTRODUCES A RECESSED AREA WITHIN THE PODIUM FAÇADE TO BREAK DOWN THE OVERALL MASSING AND SUPPORT A MORE PEDESTRIAN- CIVIL-SHEETS BUILDING AREA: 232,003 SF STRUCTURAL FRAME 1 HR. SCALED STREETSCAPE. C1.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN GROUND FLOOR AREA: 36,222 SF EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS 2 HR. JUSTIFICATION: INTRODUCING AN ADDITIONAL RECESSED AREA TO MAINTAIN FAÇADE SEGMENTS UNDER 80 FEET WOULD REDUCE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AREAS BY LOT AREA: 38,964 SF INTERIOR BEARING WALLS 1 HR. C2.00 HORIZONTAL CONTROL & SIGNING & STRIPING PLAN EXTERIOR NONBEARING WALLS & PARTITIONS SEE BELOW APPROXIMATELY 540 SF, OR THE EQUIVALENT OF 1 UNIT (108 SF/ FLOOR), WHICH WOULD HAVE A MEASURABLE IMPACT ON PROJECT EFFICIENCY AND LIVABILITY AS C3.00 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN LOT COVERAGE: 0.93 INTERIOR NONBEARING WALLS & PARTITIONS 0 HR. DESIGNED.

FAR: 5.95 FLOOR CONSTRUCTION (BEAMS & JOISTS) 1 HR. C4.00 UTILITY PLAN ROOF CONSTRUCTION (BEAMS & JOISTS) 1 HR.

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY SHAFT / STAIRWAY ENCLOSURES 2 HR. C5.00 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN DWELLING UNITS: 276 C5.01 STORMWATER CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS NUMBER OF UNITS / ACRE: 310 DU/AC
FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS C5.02 STORMWATER NOTES AFFORDABLE UNITS: 14 (5% OF TOTAL UNITS) TYPE I-A, III-A AND V-A CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPANCY PER TABLE 602: C6.00 FIRE PROTECTION PLAN AFFORDABLE LEVEL: VERY LOW
FIRE SEP. DIST. OCCUPANCIES: GROUP A, R-2, & S-2 LANDSCAPE-SHEETS X < 5 1 HR. L1.00 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN 5 ≤ X < 10 1 HR. 10 ≤ X < 30 1 HR. L1.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN GROUND FLOOR
X ≥ 30 0 HR.

LOADING SPACE PROVIDED: TWO
PARKING L1.02 LANDSCAPE PLAN SECOND FLOOR
VEHICLE PARKING PROPOSED: L1.03 LANDSCAPE PLAN EIGHTH FLOOR CAR STACKER = 208 L1.04 LANDSCAPE NOTES & SCHEDULES SURFACE PARKING = 4 ACCESSIBLE PARKING = 5 (ONE OF WHICH IS VAN ACCESSIBLE) TRASH-SHEETS TOTAL = 217
UNIT AND AREA SUMMARY TR0.1 TRASH PLAN - GROUND
GIFFORD TR0.2 TRASH PLAN - TYPICAL
TWO WHEEL VEHICLE PARKING SPACE REQUIRED: 6 (2.5% OF STANDARD VEHICLE) 325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 TR1.0 TRASH PLAN - ENLARGED PROPOSED: 6 LATEST UPDATE: 8/27/2025
BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: (1 PER 4 DWELLING UNIT) BUILDING 1 LONG-TERM SPACES (60%) = 42 SHORT-TERM SPACES (UP TO 40%) = 27 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE I TOTAL = 69 FLOORS: 5 LEVEL OF WOOD OVER 3 LEVELS OF CONCRETE BICYCLE PARKING PROPOSED:

LONG-TERM SPACES = 68 UNIT TYPE DESCRIPTION UNIT AREA UNIT TOTAL % RATIO TOTAL UNIT SHORT-TERM SPACES = 4 (SF) 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH 6TH 7TH 8TH AREA (SF) TOTAL = 72
STUDIO S1.0 STUDIO 660 4 - - - - - - - 4 1% 2,640
SETBACK SUMMARY S2.0 STUDIO 420 - - - 2 2 2 2 2 10 4% 4,200 S2.1 STUDIO 433 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 6 2% 2,598 STREET/ FRONTAGE PROPOSED S2.2 STUDIO 470 - 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 18 7% 8,460 OWNER:

SAN CARLOS ST. FIRST FLOOR 5'-0". S3.0 STUDIO 592 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 6 2% 3,552 URBAN CATALYST SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE 0'-0" (BALCONY PROJECTS 4' OVER PUBLIC ROW) 26 9% 11,388 99 S ALMADEN BLVD SUITE 500 SAN JOSE, CA 95113
S4.0 STUDIO 438 - - 1 5 5 5 5 5
S5.0 STUDIO 447 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 5 2% 2,235 GIFFORD AVE. FIRST FLOOR 2'-0". P: 408.624.5423 SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE 0'-0" (BALCONY PROJECTS 4' OVER PUBLIC ROW) STUDIO SUB-TOTAL AVERAGE SF 468 4 6 7 12 12 12 12 10 75 27% 35,073 CONTACT: MATT BERNARDIS 1 BEDROOM A1.0 1 BDRM / 1 BATH 464 - 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 13 5% 6,032 SOUTHWEST FIRST FLOOR 0'-0" OR 1'-0". A1.1 1 BDRM / 1 BATH ARCHITECT: 520 - 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 78 28% 40,560 SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: 10'-0" BDE ARCHITECTURE A1.2 1 BDRM / 1 BATH 573 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2% 3,438 950 HOWARD STREET SOUTHEAST FIRST FLOOR 0'0". A1.3 1 BDRM / 1 BATH 588 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3% 4,116 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SECOND FLOOR AND ABOVE: 10'-0" A1.4 1 BDRM / 1 BATH 602 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3% 4,214 P: 415.967.6808 CONTACT: SARAH PETRI A2.0 1 BDRM / 1 BATH 542 - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 5% 7,588 A3.0 1 BDRM / 1 BATH

PROJECT SUMMARY
723 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3% 5,061 CIVIL:

A4.0 1 BDRM / 1 BATH 613 1 2 - - - - - - 3 1% 1,839 LANGAN 1 ALMADEN BLVD. 1 BEDROOM SUB-TOTAL AVERAGE SF 540 1 15 19 20 20 20 20 20 135 49% 72,848 SUITE 590 2 BEDROOM B1.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 709 - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 5% 9,926 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 B1.1 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 7 3% 5,397 P: 408.283.3600
CONTACT: ANDREW TURNER
771 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B1.2 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 736 - 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 13 5% 9,568
PROJECT SITE B1.3 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 774 - - - 1 1 1 1 1 5 2% 3,870 JOINT TRENCH:

B2.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 964 - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 5% 13,496 RADIUS B2.1 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 201 N CIVIC DRIVE, SUITE 135 809 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 6 2% 4,854 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 B3.0 2 BDRM/ 2 BATH 1,143 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3% 8,001 P: 925-269-4575 2 BEDROOM SUB-TOTAL AVERAGE SF 835 0 9 9 10 10 10 10 8 66 24% 55,112 CONTACT: JON TRUMBO TOTAL UNITS AVERAGE SF 591 5 30 35 42 42 42 42 38 276 100% 163,033 LANDSCAPE:

KIMLEY-HORN
NET RENTABLE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS MEASURED CENTER OF DEMISING WALL, EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD OF EXTERIOR WALL AND CORRIDOR WALLS, EXCLUDING DECKS 10 S. ALMADEN BLVD SUITE 1250, SAN JOSE, CA 95113
CONTACT: MORGAN MATTHEW NET RENTABLE RESIDENTIAL BY FLOOR (EXCLUDING DECKS) 3,253 18,717 21,158 24,495 24,495 24,495 24,495 21,925 163,033 CAMILLE GREMILLION RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES 4,650 4,963 760 - - 840 11,213
LEASING OFFICE 575 - - - - - 575
GARAGE 23,603 - - - - - 23,603
OTHER (STORAGE, UTILITY ROOMS, CIRCULATION, SHAFTS, UNIT DECKS) 4,141 3,957 3,718 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,344 4,387 33,579 TOTAL GROSS 36,222 27,637 25,636 28,839 28,839 28,839 28,839 27,152 232,003 PROJECT TEAM

PARCEL MAP SITE VICINITY MAP
PROJECT INFORMATION AP0.00
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 3 ends

4 8
1 2 3
6 5
7 DIRIDON LOS GATOS HIGHWAY PROJECT
STATION CREEK CA-87 SITE

CENTER FOR THE

PERFORMING ARTS
McENERY

CONVENTION
CENTER

CHILDREN'S

DISCOVERY
MUSEUM

INTERSTATE
280
4 8
1 2 3
6 5
7 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
SITE CONTEXT AP0.01
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 4 ends

PRIVATE
200 SF

PRIVATE
198 SF

PRIVATE
144 SF

PRIVATE
146 SF
DN DN
UP
COMMON
1,619 SF

PRIVATE
175 SF

PRIVATE
169 SF
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - FLOOR 4 & 6
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - FLOOR 8

PRIVATE PRIVATE
98 SF 98 SF

PRIVATE
FLOOR 4 511 SF
FLOOR 5 573 SF
COMMON FLOOR 6 511 SF
10,413 SF FLOOR 7 573 SF
FLOOR 8 346 SF
TOTAL PRIVATE 2,514 SF
PUBLIC

PRIVATE
94 SF
FLOOR 2 10,299 SF
FLOOR 8 1,560 SF
TOTAL PUBLIC 11,859 SF

PRIVATE
93 SF TOTAL
DN TOTAL OPEN SPACE 14,373 SF
UP UP
LEGEND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

PRIVATE PRIVATE
95 SF 95 SF COMMON OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - FLOOR 5 & 7 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM - FLOOR 2 0' 20' 40' OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS 1"=20' AP0.02
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 5 ends

39 0' 32'
1/3
[O
[O
D
D
] =
] =
9 3
4 1'
' -1
-
1 8
"
" [DBE]

BREAK ROOM
AREA 273 SF MAIL
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B AREA 507 SF
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 15 NET OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B OCCUPANT LOAD 19 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 150 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD 4

OFFICE PACKAGE
AREA 131 SF AREA 210 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 S-1 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 150 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 300 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD 1 OCCUPANT LOAD 1

OFFICE RESIDENTIAL
AREA 105 SF AREA 4,201 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 150 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD 1 OCCUPANT LOAD 22
103

OFFICE OFFICE
1 2
1 1

BREAK ROOM
69 174
69 69 [DBE] = 38'-6"
1 69 2
1 2
8'-6"X22'-0" 8'-6"X22'-0"

PACKAGE
RESIDENTIAL 11 60 MAIL 5
1 LOBBY
AREA 1,581 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 A-3
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 15 NET
11 1
9'-0"X18'-0"
OCCUPANT LOAD LOBBY 106 ELEV.

NUMBER OF EXITS REQUIRED SECTION 1006.2 2
NUMBER OF EXITS PROVIDED 2 1

CO-WORK
AREA 926 SF 19
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B CO-WORK
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 50 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 19
12 Bikes
ELEV. CTRL.

AREA 95 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 S-2
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 300 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 1
SPA MECH.
3 36 Bikes
9'-0"X18'-0"
20 Bikes
LEGEND 9'-0"X18'-0"
AREA 131 SF
EXIT OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 S-2 39 OCCUPANT LOAD OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 300 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 1 39 EXIT 60 H.E.

OCCUPANT LOAD @ HORIZONTAL EXIT 9'-0"X18'-0"
12'-0"X18'-0" BIKE STORAGE
AREA 554 SF EXIT
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 S-2 39 CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD 9'-0"X18'-0" OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 3 39 EXIT DISCHARGE OCCUPANT LOAD
9'-0"X18'-0"
GARAGE
AREA 23,505 SF TABLE 1004.5 MAX AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 S-2
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 NET OCCUPANT LOAD OCCUPANT LOAD 118 FUNCTION OF SPACE FACTOR
NUMBER OF EXITS REQUIRED SECTION 1006.2 2
NUMBER OF EXITS PROVIDED 2 ACCESSORY SPACES, STORAGE, 300 GROSS MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC.

ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS, 15 NET

UNCONCENTRATED
BUSINESS AREAS (STANDARD) 150 GROSS
BUSINESS AREAS (CONCENTRATED) †† >50 GROSS
EXERCISE ROOMS 50 GROSS
MERCANTILE 60 GROSS
OUTDOOR ASSEMBLY AREAS † 15 NET
PARKING GARAGE 200 GROSS
RESIDENTIAL 200 GROSS
SWIMMING POOL 50 GROSS
SWIMMING POOL DECK 15 GROSS
† THE OCCUPANT LOAD OF SUCH OUTDOOR AREAS SHALL BE ASSIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANTICIPATED USE.
†† WHERE APPROVED BY THE AHJ, ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD, BUT NOT LESS THAN 50 OLF.

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 1 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.15
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 6 ends

39 0' 32'
[OD] = 200'-9"
1/3 [OD] = 66' - 11" [DBE]
[O
1/3
D ]
[ O
=
D
2 ]
9 =
1 9
'-
7 4"
' - 2" [DBE]

YOGA RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA
AREA 507 SF AREA 8,228 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 50 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD 11 OCCUPANT LOAD 42
NUMBER OF EXITS REQUIRED SECTION 1006.2 2
NUMBER OF EXITS PROVIDED 2

DOG RUN HUMAN AREA

GYM SPA
AREA 140 SF
AREA 1,277 SF AREA 84 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 A-3
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 A-3 OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 ACC OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 15 NET
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 50 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 50 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD 10
OCCUPANT LOAD 26 OCCUPANT LOAD 2
NUMBER OF EXITS REQUIRED SECTION 1006.2 1
NUMBER OF EXITS PROVIDED 1
1 173
1 1 125
103H.E. 103 [DBE] = 131'-0" H.E.
26 11
CO-WORK 3
AREA 569 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 B
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 150 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 4
126
LEGEND
4 [DBE] = 97' - 9"
67 COURTYARD
67 EXIT AREA 3,557 SF 39 OCCUPANT LOAD
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 A-3 174
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 15 NET 39 EXIT
OCCUPANT LOAD 238
NUMBER OF EXITS REQUIRED SECTION 1006.2 2
NUMBER OF EXITS PROVIDED 2
H.E.

OCCUPANT LOAD @ HORIZONTAL EXIT
EXIT
39 CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD
39 EXIT DISCHARGE OCCUPANT LOAD
RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA 2
AREA 16,280 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS TABLE 1004.5 MAX AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT OCCUPANT LOAD 82 OCCUPANT LOAD

FUNCTION OF SPACE FACTOR
GAME ROOM / LOUNGE / KITCHEN ACCESSORY SPACES, STORAGE, 300 GROSS AREA 2,007 SF MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC.

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5
A-2
15 NET
134

ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS,

UNCONCENTRATED
15 NET
NUMBER OF EXITS REQUIRED SECTION 1006.2 2 BUSINESS AREAS (STANDARD) 150 GROSS NUMBER OF EXITS PROVIDED 2 BUSINESS AREAS (CONCENTRATED) †† >50 GROSS EXERCISE ROOMS 50 GROSS
MERCANTILE 60 GROSS
OUTDOOR ASSEMBLY AREAS † 15 NET
PARKING GARAGE 200 GROSS
RESIDENTIAL 200 GROSS
SWIMMING POOL 50 GROSS
SWIMMING POOL DECK 15 GROSS
† THE OCCUPANT LOAD OF SUCH OUTDOOR AREAS SHALL BE ASSIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANTICIPATED USE.
†† WHERE APPROVED BY THE AHJ, ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD, BUT NOT LESS THAN 50 OLF.

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 2 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.16
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 7 ends

39 0' 32'
AREA 24,290 SF
1 RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA
H.E.
88 89
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 H.E.

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 122
1 1

OPEN TO BELOW

MEDIA LOUNGE
AREA 734 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 A-3
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 15 NET
OCCUPANT LOAD 49

OPEN TO BELOW
88 1
1 1
LEGEND
49 39
EXIT

OCCUPANT LOAD
89 39 EXIT H.E.

OCCUPANT LOAD @ HORIZONTAL EXIT
EXIT
39 CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD
39 EXIT DISCHARGE OCCUPANT LOAD
TABLE 1004.5 MAX AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT

OCCUPANT LOAD

FUNCTION OF SPACE FACTOR
ACCESSORY SPACES, STORAGE, 300 GROSS
MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC.

ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS, 15 NET

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 3 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.17
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 8 ends

39 0' 32'
RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA 2
AREA 16,507 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 83

RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA
AREA 11,181 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2
OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS
OCCUPANT LOAD 56
1 H.E.
42 H.E.
29 43
1 1
1 LEGEND
EXIT
39 OCCUPANT LOAD
29 39 EXIT H.E.

OCCUPANT LOAD @ HORIZONTAL EXIT
EXIT
39 CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD
39 EXIT DISCHARGE OCCUPANT LOAD
TABLE 1004.5 MAX AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT

OCCUPANT LOAD

FUNCTION OF SPACE FACTOR
ACCESSORY SPACES, STORAGE, 300 GROSS
MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC.

ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS, 15 NET

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOORS 4-7 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.18
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 9 ends

39 0' 32'

RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA RESIDENTIAL EXITING AREA
AREA 8,431 SF AREA 16,759 SF
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 200 GROSS OCCUPANT LOAD 43 OCCUPANT LOAD 84
1 H.E.
94 43
1 1
43 1
LEGEND
48 EXIT
39 OCCUPANT LOAD
H.E.
39 EXIT
95 49 47 PENTHOUSE LOUNGE
AREA 715 SF
H.E.

OCCUPANT LOAD @ HORIZONTAL EXIT
EXIT
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTION 302.1 R-2 ACC 39 CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR TABLE 1004.5 15 NET
OCCUPANT LOAD 48
39 EXIT DISCHARGE OCCUPANT LOAD
TABLE 1004.5 MAX AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT

OCCUPANT LOAD

FUNCTION OF SPACE FACTOR
PENTHOUSE DECK ACCESSORY SPACES, STORAGE, 300 GROSS
AREA 735 SF MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC.

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5
R-2 ACC
15 NET

ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS,

UNCONCENTRATED
15 NET
OCCUPANT LOAD 49 BUSINESS AREAS (STANDARD) 150 GROSS
BUSINESS AREAS (CONCENTRATED) †† >50 GROSS
PENTHOUSE LOUNGE EXERCISE ROOMS 50 GROSS
AREA 691 SF MERCANTILE 60 GROSS

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5
R-2 ACC
15 NET OUTDOOR ASSEMBLY AREAS † 15 NET
OCCUPANT LOAD 47 PARKING GARAGE 200 GROSS
RESIDENTIAL 200 GROSS
SWIMMING POOL 50 GROSS
SWIMMING POOL DECK 15 GROSS
† THE OCCUPANT LOAD OF SUCH OUTDOOR AREAS SHALL BE ASSIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANTICIPATED USE.
†† WHERE APPROVED BY THE AHJ, ACTUAL OCCUPANT LOAD, BUT NOT LESS THAN 50 OLF.

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
EGRESS DIAGRAM - FLOOR 8 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.19
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 10 ends

39 0' 32'
LEGEND

ROOF IS UNOCCUPIED EXIT
39 OCCUPANT LOAD
39 EXIT
OCCUPANT LOAD @ HORIZONTAL EXIT
EXIT
39 CUMULATIVE OCCUPANT LOAD
39 EXIT DISCHARGE OCCUPANT LOAD
TABLE 1004.5 MAX AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT

OCCUPANT LOAD

FUNCTION OF SPACE FACTOR
ACCESSORY SPACES, STORAGE, 300 GROSS
MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ETC.

ASSEMBLY WITHOUT FIXED SEATS, 15 NET

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 8' 16' 32'
EGRESS DIAGRAM - ROOF 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.20
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 11 ends

______ ______
______ ______
______
______ ______
0'
10'-1 3/8"
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
14'-3" 14'-3"
45% ▬
45% ▬ 45% ▬
10'-1 3/8"
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
14'-4" 14'-4"
45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬
45% ▬ 45% ▬

GENERAL NOTES
CBC TABLE 705.8

MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE

SEPARATION DISTANCE WITH UNRPOTECTED OPENINGS IN

BUILDINGS EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC
SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1.

OPENING PERCENTAGE IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:
(WIDTH OF OPENING x HEIGHT OF OPENING) x 100
WIDTH OF WALL x HEIGHT OF WALL

LEGEND - PLANS

SEPARATION ALLOWABLE
NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ 45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬45% ▬ 45% ▬NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ 45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬
45% ▬ 45% ▬

DISTANCE OPENING AREA
NP NP NP 0 FT < 3 FT NOT PERMITTED
15% 15% 15% 3 FT < 5 FT 15%
25% 25% 25% 5 FT < 10 FT 25%
45% 45% 45% 10 FT < 15 FT 45%
75% 75% 75% 15 FT < 20 FT 75%
75% ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 75% ▬75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 75% ▬75% ▬ 75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
11'-3 7/8"
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
15'-11" 15'-11"
15'-10" 15'-10" 15'-10" 15'-10" 15'-10" 15'-10"
75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬ NL ▬ AP0.23 AP0.23
1 1 NL NL NL > 20 FT NO LIMIT
AP0.23 AP0.23
1 NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 75% ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬

LEGEND - ELEVATIONS

SEPARATION ALLOWABLE

DISTANCE OPENING AREA
0 FT < 3 FT NOT PERMITTED
3 FT < 5 FT 15%
5 FT < 10 FT 25%
10 FT < 15 FT 45%
15 FT < 20 FT 75%
> 20 FT NO LIMIT

OPENING AREA
10'-1 3/8"
12'-4"
10'-0 7/8"
12'-11 5/8"
12'-3 7/8"
10'-0 7/8" 10'-0 3/4"
11'-4"
45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬ 45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ 45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ 2 ______
AP0.23
2 ______
AP0.23
ALLOWABLE OPENING PLANS - FLOORS 4-8 4 ALLOWABLE OPENING PLANS - FLOOR 2 2 1" = 20'-0" 1" = 20'-0"
10'-1 1/2"
45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ 45% ▬
45% ▬ 45% ▬
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
14'-4" 14'-4"
45% ▬ 45% ▬
45% ▬
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 75% ▬75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬ 75% ▬NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬
8'-6"X22'-0" 8'-6"X22'-0"
15'-10" 15'-10" 15'-10" 15'-10"
NL ▬
75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬75% ▬ AP0.23
1 9'-0"X18'-0"
AP0.23 AP0.23
NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ NL ▬ 75% ▬
9'-0"X18'-0"
9'-0"X18'-0"
9'-0"X18'-0"
12'-0"X18'-0"
9'-0"X18'-0"
9'-0"X18'-0"
11'-3 7/8"
12'-3 7/8"
10'-0 3/4"
45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬45% ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ NP ▬ 2 ______
AP0.23
2 ______
AP0.23
ALLOWABLE OPENING PLANS - FLOOR 3 3 ALLOWABLE OPENING PLANS - FLOOR 1 1 1" = 20'-0" 1" = 20'-0"
0' 20' 40'

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
ALLOWABLE OPENINGS DIAGRAM - PLANS 1"=20' AP0.22
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 12 ends

74' - 7" 74' - 7"
FLOOR 8 FLOOR 8
15' - 4" 15' - 4"
FLOOR 2 FLOOR 2
74' - 7" 74' - 7"
FLOOR 8 FLOOR 8
028 SF10 5. . SF
028 SF10 5.
028 SF10 5. . SF
02810 5 SF.
02810 5 SF.
15' - 4" 15' - 4"
FLOOR 2 FLOOR 2
74' 7" 74' - 7"
FLOOR FLOOR 8
15' 4" 15' - 4"
FLOOR FLOOR 2
0' - 0"
0' 32'
89' - 2 3/4" 89' - 2 3/4"

PARAPET PARAPET
83' - 6 3/4" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 83' - 6 3/4"

ROOF WALL AREA

OPENING AREA
1017.5 SF
378.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF ROOF
ALLOWABLE OPENING 75% 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 74' - 7" PROPOSED 37.1% 74' - 7"
FLOOR 8 FLOOR 8

10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 64' - 7 3/4" 64' - 7 3/4"
FLOOR 7

10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF
FLOOR 7 GENERAL NOTES

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF CBC TABLE 705.8 54' - 8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
54' - 8 1/2"
FLOOR 6 MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS BASED ON FIRE

10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF

10.5 SF

28.0 SF

10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF

28.0 SF

28.0 SF 10.5 SF

10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF

SEPARATION DISTANCE WITH UNRPOTECTED OPENINGS IN

BUILDINGS EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC
44' - 9 1/4" 44' - 9 1/4" SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1.

FLOOR 5
ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF FLOOR 5 OPENING PERCENTAGE IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:
34' - 10"
FLOOR 4

WALL AREA

OPENING AREA

ALLOWABLE OPENING
1151.9 SF
441.3 SF
75%

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 34' - 10"
FLOOR 4
(WIDTH OF OPENING x HEIGHT OF OPENING) x 100
WIDTH OF WALL x HEIGHT OF WALL
PROPOSED 38.3% 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 84.3 SF 101.5 SF 84.0 SF 84.0 SF 56.0 SF 24' - 10" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 24' - 10" LEGEND - PLANS FLOOR 3 WALL AREA 1456.1 SF FLOOR 3
OPENING AREA 504.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF SEPARATION ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS ALLOWABLE OPENING 75% 44.7 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 48.0 SF 96.3 SF 116.0 SF 96.0 SF 96.0 SF 64.0 SF DISTANCE OPENING AREA WALL AREA 238.5 SF 15' - 4" PROPOSED 34.6% 15' - 4" NP NP NP 0 FT < 3 FT NOT PERMITTED OPENING AREA 96.0 SF FLOOR 2 FLOOR 2
ALLOWABLE OPENING 45% 15% 15% 15% 3 FT < 5 FT 15%
PROPOSED 40.3% 25% 25% 25% 5 FT < 10 FT 25%
ALLOWABLE OPENING ELEVATIONS - COURTYARD WEST 6 ALLOWABLE OPENING ELVATIONS - COURTYARD SOUTH 5 45% 45% 45% 10 FT < 15 FT 45% 1/16" = 1'-0" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS
WALL AREA 114.4 SF
OPENING AREA 56.0 SF
1/16" = 1'-0" 75%
NL
75%
NL
75%
NL
15 FT < 20 FT
> 20 FT
75%

NO LIMIT
ALLOWABLE OPENING 75%
PROPOSED 49% LEGEND - ELEVATIONS
89' - 2 3/4" 89' - 2 3/4" SEPARATION ALLOWABLE

PARAPET PARAPET DISTANCE OPENING AREA
83' - 6 3/4" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 83' - 6 3/4"
ROOF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF WALL AREA

OPENING AREA
646.5 SF
266.0 SF
ROOF 0 FT < 3 FT NOT PERMITTED

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF ALLOWABLE OPENING 75% 74' - 7" PROPOSED 41.1% 74' - 7" 3 FT < 5 FT 15%
FLOOR 8 FLOOR 8

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 46.7 SF 10 528 010.5 SF28.0 SF 5 FT < 10 FT 25% 64' - 7 3/4" 64' - 7 3/4"
FLOOR 7 FLOOR 7 10 FT < 15 FT 45%

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF
54' - 8 1/2"

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 46.7 SF 28 010.5 SF28.0 SF 54' - 8 1/2" 15 FT < 20 FT 75%
FLOOR 6 FLOOR 6

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF > 20 FT NO LIMIT

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 46.7 SF 10 528 010.5 SF28.0 SF 44' - 9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
44' - 9 1/4"
FLOOR 5 OPENING AREA

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 46.7 SF 28 010.5 SF28.0 SF 34' - 10" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 34' - 10"
FLOOR 4 WALL AREA 130.0 SF FLOOR 4
OPENING AREA 73.1 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF
ALLOWABLE OPENING 75% 73.1 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 44.7 SF 28 010.5 SF28.0 SF ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 24' - 10" PROPOSED 56.2% 24' - 10"

WALL AREA

OPENING AREA

ALLOWABLE OPENING
239.7 SF

96.3 SF
45% 96.3 SF
FLOOR 3

92.6 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF

10.5 SF

28.0 SF 44.7 SF
FLOOR 3
PROPOSED 40.2% 15' - 4" 15' - 4"
FLOOR 2 FLOOR 2

ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS
WALL AREA 123.5 SF WALL AREA 1057.0 SF
OPENING AREA 92.6 SF OPENING AREA 282.7 SF
ALLOWABLE OPENING 75% ALLOWABLE OPENING 75%
ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS ALLOWABLE OPENING ELVATIONS - COURTYARD EAST 4 PROPOSED 75% PROPOSED 26.7% ALLOWABLE OPENING ELVATIONS - COURTYARD NORTH 3

WALL AREA

OPENING AREA
1388.4 SF
489.5 SF 1/16" = 1'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0"
ALLOWABLE OPENING 45%
PROPOSED 35.3% ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS
89' -2 3/4"

PARAPET
83' -6 3/4"
WALL AREA 1327.5 SF
OPENING AREA 378.0 SF
ALLOWABLE OPENING 45%
PROPOSED 28.5%
89' - 2 3/4"

PARAPET
83' - 6 3/4"

10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF ROOF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF ROOF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 74' -7" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 74' - 7"
FLOOR 8WALL AREA 1489.9 SF FLOOR 8

10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 22.5 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF OPENING AREA 451.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF

10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF ALLOWABLE OPENING 45% 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF

28.0 SF 64' -7 3/4" PROPOSED 30.3% 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 64' - 7 3/4" FLOOR 7 FLOOR 7

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 22.5 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 54' -8 1/2" 54' - 8 1/2"
FLOOR 6 FLOOR 6

10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 22.5 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF

10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF

28.0 SF 44' -9 1/4" 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 44' - 9 1/4"
FLOOR 5 FLOOR 5

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 22.5 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 34' - 10" 10.5 SF 34' - 10"
FLOOR 4 FLOOR 4

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 24' - 10" ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS 24' - 10"

28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 22.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF FLOOR 3 WALL AREA

OPENING AREA
1122.4 SF
266.0 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF FLOOR 3

28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 10.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 22.5 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF ALLOWABLE OPENING 45% 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 28.0 SF 10.5 SF 15' -4" PROPOSED 23.7% 15' - 4"
FLOOR 2FLOOR 2
0' -0" 0' - 0" 0' - 0"
T.O. SLAB FLOOR 1 FLOOR 1T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 1 FLOOR 1

ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS
WALL AREA 2356.6 SF
OPENING AREA 668.0 SF
ALLOWABLE OPENING 45% -14' -6" -14' - 6"
PROPOSED 28.3% BASEMENT PIT BASEMENT PIT

ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGS
WALL AREA 2313.2 SF
OPENING AREA 661.5 SF
ALLOWABLE OPENING 45%
PROPOSED 28.6%
ALLOWABLE OPENING ELEVATIONS - SOUTH 2 ALLOWABLE OPENING ELEVATION - EAST 1 1/16" = 1'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0"
0' 8' 16' 32'
ALLOWABLE OPENINGS DIAGRAM - 1/16"=1'-0" AP0.23
ELEVATIONS THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 13 ends

FIRE DEPARTMENT VARIANCE AP0.25
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 14 ends

0'
5'-0"

SETBACK
W
E
ST
S
A
N
C
A
RLOS

ONE FLOOR

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING

SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES

ONE FLOOR

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING

GIFFORD AVE
247'-0"
2'-0"

SETBACK

OFFICE STACKED

POWER PACKS
2CY FL

COMPACTOR

CONTAINER

RECYCLI NG
2CY FL

COMPACTOR

CONTAINER
WASTE

MAIL BOOSTER PUMP ROOM
STAIR 2 2CY FL

COMPACTOR

CONTAINER

RECYCLI NG
2CY FL

COMPACTOR

CONTAINER
WASTE
A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0

ELECTRICAL ROOM

LOBBY ONE FLOOR

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING

TWO - THRESS FLOORS

APARTMENT BUILDING
159'-0"

CO-WORK
160'-0"

FIRE PUMP

BIKE STORAGE
GARAGE

ELECTRICAL ROOM
STAIR

ONE FLOOR

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING
81'-0"
1'-0"
0'-4"

SETBACK
160'-0"

ONE FLOOR

COMMERCIAL

BUILDING

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 20' 40'
SITE PLAN 1"=20' AP1.00
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 15 ends

______
______
______
0'
1 5'-0"

SETBACK
W
E
ST
S
A
N
C
A
RLOS
2 ______ GIFFORD AVE
AP3.00 1 ______
AP3.21
42'-8" 23'-2" 10'-10"
20'-0" 16'-3" 16'-3" 16'-2" 16'-2"
2CY FL 2CY FL

COMPACTOR COMPACTOR

CONTAINER CONTAINER UP
2'-0"

SETBACK

OFFICE OFFICE RECYCLING WASTE

STACKED

BOOSTER PUMP POWER PACKS
CHUTE ROOM SHORT TERM 2'-0"2'-0" 14'-3" BREAK ROOM DISCHARGE 2CY FL

BICYCLE COMPACTOR

CONTAINER

ROOM RECYCLING
PARKING (4)
6'-0" 6'-0"
2CY FL

COMPACTOR
STAIR 2 CONTAINER
WASTE
6'-0"
A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 30'-0"
6'-0"

PACKAGE MAIL

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

CORRIDOR

LOBBY ELEV

SPA MECH

ELEV CONTROL
MPOE
1 ______ CAR STACKER
AP3.20
19'-1" 19'-1"
10'-0" 10'-0"
3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0"
8'-6"X22'-0" 8'-6"X22'-0"

TWO WHEEL
VEHICLE PARKING 155'-4"
1 AP3.02
AP3.00 CO-WORK
12 Bikes
9'-0"X18'-0"
BIKE STORAGE 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" TOTAL : 68 9'-0"X18'-0"
36 Bikes
36 CARS 20 CARS 44 CARS
6'-0"
20 Bikes
24'-0"
GARAGE

FIRE PUMP
9'-0"X18'-0" 20 CARS 44 CARS 44 CARS
8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2" 8'-2"

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
24'-0"
STAIR 9'-0"X18'-0"
12'-0"X18'-0"

CAR STACKER
9'-0"X18'-0"
9'-0"X18'-0"
35'-5"
2 AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
FLOOR 1 - PLAN 1"=10' AP2.01
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 16 ends

______ ______
______
______
______
0'
1 2 1
AP3.00 AP3.21
17'-0" 219'-1" 10'-1"
STAIR 2
A1.1 B1.2 A1.1 A1.1 A1.1 A3.0 B2.0
B3.0
TRASH

CORRIDOR
IDF
A1.4
YOGA
A1.1 A2.0 A4.0
GYM A1.0
A1.3
1 ______
AP3.20 COURTYARD
10'-1" 59'-1" 31'-9" 59'-1"
AP3.00
11'-4" 147'-8"

COWORK DOG RUN
1 AP3.02
A4.0

GAME ROOM
B1.2

LOUNGE/
KITCHEN B1.1 A1.1 A2.0

IDF BATH BATH

CORRIDOR
STAIR
UP
B2.1
B1.0 B1.0 S2.2 S2.2 S2.2 S2.2 B2.0
S3.0 S2.1

OUTDOOR DECK
134'-0" 97'-4" 10'-1"
2 AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
FLOOR 2 - PLAN 1"=10' AP2.02
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 17 ends

______ ______
______
______
0'
1 2 1
16'-11" 219'-3"
AP3.00 AP3.21
A1.1 B1.2 A1.1 A1.1 A1.1 A1.1 A3.0 B2.0
B3.0 TRASH

IDF AV CLOSET
A1.4

MAINTENANCE
OFFICE A1.1 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
A1.0 OPEN TO BELOW
A1.3
A1.1
1 ______
AP3.20
AP3.00
11'-4" 147'-8"
A1.2
A1.1 IDF
1 AP3.02
B1.2
MEDIA LOUNGE OPEN TO BELOW S4.0 B1.1 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
IDF

CORRIDOR
DN
STAIR
UP
B2.1 S2.1 B1.0 B1.0 S2.2 S2.2 S2.2 B2.0
S3.0 S2.2
10'-1" 149'-11"
134'-0" 97'-4" 10'-1"
2 ______
AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
FLOOR 3 - PLAN 1"=10' AP2.03
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 18 ends

______
______
______
______
0'
1 16'-11" 56'-9" 37'-10"
2 AP3.00 1
AP3.21
124'-8"
B3.0 A1.1 B1.2 A1.0 A1.1 A3.0 B2.0
STAIR 2 TRASH

CORRIDOR
IDF
A1.4
S4.0 S4.0 S4.0 A1.1 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
A1.0
A1.3
A1.1
1 ______
AP3.20
11'-4" 20'-5" 31'-2" 96'-1"
AP3.00
A1.2
A1.1 IDF
1 AP3.02
B1.2
S5.0 B1.1
B1.3 A1.1 S4.0 S4.0 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
IDF

CORRIDOR
DN
STAIR
UP B2.0
B2.1 B1.0 B1.0
S2.1
S3.0 S2.2 S2.2 S2.0 S2.0
10'-1" 149'-11"
134'-3" 35'-1" 34'-10" 27'-2" 10'-1"
2 ______
AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
FLOOR 4 & 6 - PLAN 1"=10' AP2.04
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 19 ends

______
______
______
______
0'
1 56'-9" 38'-7"
2 AP3.00 1
AP3.21
123'-11"
B3.0 A1.1 B1.2 A1.0 A1.1 A2.0 B2.0
STAIR 2 TRASH

CORRIDOR
IDF
A1.4
S4.0 S4.0 S4.0 A1.1 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
A1.0
A1.3
A1.1
1 ______
AP3.20
11'-4" 20'-5" 31'-2" 96'-1"
AP3.00
A1.2
A1.1 IDF
1 AP3.02
B1.2
S5.0 B1.1
B1.3 A1.1 S4.0 S4.0 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
IDF

CORRIDOR
DN
STAIR
UP B2.0
B2.1 B1.0 B1.0
S2.1
S3.0 S2.2 S2.2 S2.0 S2.0
10'-1" 149'-11"
134'-4" 35'-1" 34'-10" 27'-2" 10'-1"
2 ______
AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
FLOOR 5 & 7 - PLAN 1"=10' AP2.05
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 20 ends

______ ______
______
______
______
______
0'
2 1
16'-11" 56'-9" 37'-10"
AP3.00 AP3.21
124'-8"
B3.0 B1.2 A1.0 A1.1 A3.0 B2.0
STAIR 2 TRASH
IDF
A1.4
S4.0 S4.0 S4.0 A1.1 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
A1.0
A1.3
A1.1
11'-4" 24'-2" 27'-6" 96'-1"
1 AP3.20
1 AP3.00
A1.2
A1.1 IDF
10'-1" 149'-11"
1 AP3.02

PENTHOUSE
LOUNGE
1" / 1'-0"
S5.0 B1.3 A1.1 S4.0 S4.0 B1.1 A1.1 A2.0 A1.1
1" / 1'-0"
DN
STAIR
B1.0 B1.0 S2.0 B2.0
TRELLIS S2.2 S2.0
ABOVE

PENTHOUSE
DECK
76'-7" 57'-8" 35'-1" 34'-10" 27'-2" 10'-1"
2 AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
FLOOR 8 1"=10' AP2.06
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 21 ends

______ ______
______
0'
2 1
AP3.00 AP3.21
STAIR 2
ELEV
1 ______
AP3.20
1 ______
AP3.00
1 ______
AP3.02
2 AP3.02

TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 10' 20'
ROOF 1"=10' AP2.07
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 22 ends

1 3
7 2
PL PL
3 8 11 10 12 89' - 2 3/4"

PARAPET
83' - 6 3/4"
ROOF
74' - 7"
FLOOR 8

WEST SAN CARLOS AVE
15'-4" 9'-6" 10'-0" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 8'-11 3/4" 5'-8" 64' - 7 3/4"
FLOOR 7
54' - 8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
44' - 9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
34' - 10"
FLOOR 4
24' - 10"
FLOOR 3
83'-6 3/4"
15' - 4"
FLOOR 2
6 16
15 1
PL
3 7 3 8 11
4 9

NORTH - BUILDING ELEVATION
PL
0' - 0"
FLOOR 1
2 89' - 2 3/4"

PARAPET
10 15'-4" 9'-6" 10'-0" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 8'-11 3/4" 5'-8"

MATERIAL LEGEND
83' - 6 3/4"
ROOF 1 STUCCO, WHITE
2 STUCCO, GRAY
74' - 7"
FLOOR 8
64' - 7 3/4"
FLOOR 7
54' - 8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
44' - 9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
34' - 10"
FLOOR 4
3 STUCCO, BLUE
4 METAL TRELLIS
5 METAL PANEL, BLUE
6 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - DARK BRONZE
7 VINYL WINDOW - DARK
8 METAL RAILING - DARK BRONZE
9 GLASS RAILING
10 GLASS MURAL
11 METAL AWNING
12 BUILDING SIGNAGE
13 CONCRETE WALL
14 CMU WALL
15 VENEER STONE
16 DOWNLIGHT UNDER SOFFIT

GIFFORD AVE
89'-2 3/4"
2 24' - 10" GIFFORD AVE
FLOOR 3
3 1
2 AP5.00 AP5.00
16 6
15 15' -4"
FLOOR 2
1 W SAN CARLOS AVE
0' - 0"
FLOOR 1
90'-1" (RESIDENTIAL LOBBY AND AMENITY X2= 180'-2)
MORE THAN 80% OF ACTIVE FRONTAGE 157'-1"

TOTAL FRONTAGE

TRUE PROJ

WEST - BUILDING ELEVATION NORTHNORTH
1 0' 4' 8' 16' 24'
NORTH/ WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 3/32"=1'-0" AP3.00
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 23 ends

7 1
8 2
PL PL 4 9 6 3 8 3 11
89' -2 3/4"

PARAPET
83' -6 3/4"
ROOF
74' -7"
FLOOR 8
64' -7 3/4"
FLOOR 7
54' -8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
15'-4" 9'-6" 10'-0" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 8'-11 3/4" 5'-8"

WEST SAN CARLOS AVE
83'-6 3/4"
44' -9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
34' - 10"
10'-3 7/8" FLOOR 4
24' - 10"
FLOOR 3
2 13 14
15' -4"
FLOOR 2
0' -0"
FLOOR 1
2 2

MATERIAL LEGEND
1 STUCCO, WHITE
2 STUCCO, GRAY
3 STUCCO, BLUE
4 METAL TRELLIS
5 METAL PANEL, BLUE
6 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT -DARK BRONZE
7 VINYL WINDOW -DARK
8 METAL RAILING -DARK BRONZE
9 GLASS RAILING
10 GLASS MURAL
11 METAL AWNING
12 BUILDING SIGNAGE
13 CONCRETE WALL
14 CMU WALL
15 VENEER STONE
16 DOWNLIGHT UNDER SOFFIT

GIFFORD AVE

SOUTH - BUILDING ELEVATION
PL PL 1 3 7
89' -2 3/4"

PARAPET
15'-4" 9'-6" 10'-0" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 8'-11 3/4" 5'-8" 83'-6 3/4"
83' -6 3/4"
ROOF
74' -7"
FLOOR 8
64' -7 3/4"
FLOOR 7
54' -8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
44' -9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
34' - 10"
FLOOR 4
24' - 10"
FLOOR 3

GIFFORD AVE
2 15' -4"
FLOOR 2

W SAN CARLOS AVE
0' -0"
FLOOR 1
13 14
EAST - BUILDING ELEVATION 1 TRUE PROJ

NORTHNORTH
0' 4' 8' 16' 24'
SOUTH/ EAST ELEVATION 3/32"=1'-0" AP3.02
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. 1 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set Page 24
5 GENERAL NOTES:
1) MATERIALS SHOULD BE GRAFFITI-RESISTANT OR EASILY REPAINTED 2) USE HIGHLY-TRANSPARENT GLASS AT THE GROUND FLOOR.
3) USE GLASS ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR THAT IS CLEAR IN COLOR OR WITH A SUBTLE COOL (BLUE, GREEN, OR GRAY) TINT 1 STUCCO - WHITE 2 STUCCO - GRAY 3 STUCCO - BLUE 4 METAL TRELLIS BENJAMIN MOORE - SNOW WHITE BENJAMIN MOORE - CHARCOAL LINEN - 2133-40 BENJAMIN MOORE - FINLEY BLUE - CW-620

METAL PANEL - BLUE
6 BREAK METAL - DARK BRONZE 8 METAL RAILING -DARK

ALUMINUM STOREFRONT, METAL RAILING, AWNING
10 GLASS MURAL 11 TPO ROOFING - WHITE
7 VINYL WINDOW - DARK BRONZE
(NO MIRRORED GLASS)
MATERIAL BOARD AP3.10
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 25 ends

PERSPECTIVE VIEWS AP3.11
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 26 ends

PERSPECTIVE VIEWS AP3.12
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 27 ends

PL
89' -2 3/4"

PARAPET
84'-10 1/2"
83' -6 3/4" AVERAGE ROOF ROOF
1' - 3 3/4"
84' - 10 1/2"

BUILDING HEIGHT
74'-7"
14'-6" 15'-4" 9'-6" 10'-0" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 8'-11 3/4" 5'-8" 83'-7"
A1.2 CORRIDOR A1.1
A1.2 CORRIDOR A1.1
CORRIDOR A1.1
A1.2 CORRIDOR A1.1
CORRIDOR A1.1 A1.2
74' -7"
FLOOR 8
64' -7 3/4"
FLOOR 7
54' -8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
44' -9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
34' - 10"
FLOOR 4
24' - 10"
FLOOR 3
15' -4"
FLOOR 2

FIRE ACCESS HEIGHT

W SAN CARLOS AVE
A1.2 A1.1
COWORK

COURTYARD DOG RUN

CO-WORK LOBBY GARAGE GARAGE
0' -0"
FLOOR 1
-14' -6"

BASEMENT PIT

GIFFORD AVE
0' 4' 8' 16' 24'
SECTIONS 3/32"=1'-0" AP3.20
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 28 ends

PL PL
89' - 2 3/4"

PARAPET
83' - 6 3/4"
ROOF
A3.0 STAIR 2 A1.0 A1.1 S2.2
74' - 7"
FLOOR 8
A2.0 STAIR 2 A1.0 A1.1 S2.2
64' - 7 3/4"
FLOOR 7
STAIR 2 A1.0 A1.1
54' - 8 1/2"
FLOOR 6
A2.0 STAIR 2 A1.0 A1.1 S2.2
44' - 9 1/4"
FLOOR 5
A3.0 STAIR 2 A1.0 A1.1 S2.2
34' - 10"
FLOOR 4
A3.0 STAIR 2 A1.0 A1.1 S2.2
24' - 10"
FLOOR 3

OUTDOOR DECK
A3.0 STAIR 2 A1.0 COURTYARD A1.1 S2.2
15' - 4"
FLOOR 2

CORRIDOR
GARAGE
STAIR 2
0' - 0"
FLOOR 1
-14' - 6"

BASEMENT PIT
14'-6" 15'-4" 9'-6" 10'-0" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/4" 8'-11 3/4" 5'-8" 83'-6 3/4"

GIFFORD AVE

W SAN CARLOS AVE
0' 4' 8' 16' 24'
SECTIONS 3/32"=1'-0" AP3.21
THE GIFFORD (H25-039) BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 29 ends

0'
B2.2 6 S4.0 4 B1.0 2
1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/4" = 1'-0"
14'-2"
7'-1"
B3.0
1/4" = 1'-0"
5 A1.1
1/4" = 1'-0"
3 B1.2
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 0' 2' 4' 8'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
UNIT PLANS 1/4"=1'-0" AP4.00
BMR UNITS APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 30 ends

SEE PLAN

EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ
1' - 0"
2 1/2" 5' - 0"
2X9 STEEL TUBE, PTD
4X12 STEEL TUBE, PTD

KNIFE PLATE
STEEL TUBE, S.S.D.
2 - AWNIG SECTION 2 3
1 1/2" = 1'-0"

VARIES, SEE PLAN
8' - 8"
8' - 0" 4"
STUCCO

RIGID INSULATION

WRB,LAP O/ SASM
PODIUM SLAB, S.S.D.

GC TO LOCATE PER CONSRUCTION
TOLERANCES, SHIM WITH GYPSUM 1" MAX
0'-10" 0'-10" 0'-10" 0'-10" 0'-10"
SHEATHING AS REQ.

FOIL-FACED SASM, LAP O/ GSM

GSM DRIP EDGE
6"

METAL PANEL O/ FURRING

MTL FRAMING

METAL PANEL O/ VERT FURRING
WRB
3 AP5.00 2X9 STEEL TUBE, PTD KNIFE PLATE
4X12 STEEL TUBE, PTD

FOIL-FACED SASM, LAP O/ GSM

GSM FLASHING W/ HEMMED DRIP EDGE

MTL FRAMING
WRB

FAUX WOOD RAINSCREEN PANEL O/ FURRING

ALUMINUM STOREFRONT

WINDOW, SEE SCHEDULE
1- AWNING PLAN 2
1" = 1'-0"
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
EXTERIOR STEP @ PODIUM SLAB SOFFIT
3" = 1'-0"

DETAILS

BMR UNITS
1 AP5.00
APRIL 27, 2026
All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 31 ends

0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN C1.00
770732901-0101-CD101-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 13:25 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C1.00 Document Code:

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 32 ends

LOBBY

CO-WORK
GARAGE
OFFICE
MAIL
STAIR 2
STAIR
A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0

BOOSTER PUMP ROOM

ELECTRICAL ROOM

BIKE STORAGE

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRICAL ROOM
0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026
HORIZONTAL CONTROL & SIGNING & STRIPING PLAN C2.00
770732901-0101-CS102-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 13:29 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C2.00 Document Code:

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 33 ends

LOBBY

CO-WORK
GARAGE
OFFICE
MAIL
STAIR 2
STAIR
A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0

BOOSTER PUMP ROOM

ELECTRICAL ROOM

BIKE STORAGE

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRICAL ROOM
A
B
0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026

TYPICAL SECTION A-A SAN CARLOS STREET TYPICAL SECTION B-B GIFFORD AVENUE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C3.00
770732901-0101-CG101-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 12:50 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C3.00 Document Code:

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 34 ends

LOBBY

CO-WORK
GARAGE
OFFICE
MAIL
STAIR 2
STAIR
A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0

BOOSTER PUMP ROOM

ELECTRICAL ROOM

BIKE STORAGE

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRICAL ROOM
0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026
UTILITY PLAN C4.00
770732901-0101-CU101-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 12:16 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C4.00 Document Code:

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 35 ends

ELEV
STAIR 2
0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C5.00
770732901-0101-CG102-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 12:34 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C5.00 Document Code:

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 36 ends

0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026
STORMWATER CALCULATIONS AND DETAILS C5.01
770732901-0101-CG501-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 13:46 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C5.01 Document Code:

0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 22, 2026

BIOTREATMENT SOIL REQUIREMENTS
Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 37 ends

MEDIA FILTER SIZING
DMA # 12
A= 17211s.f. A= 0.39511acre
Area* Weighted C Value (s.f.) C Value Rainfall Intensity (i)

0.9 16,795 i =0.2

0.8 0

0.881

0.7 0

0.1 416
* Input Values by hand or use Table at the bottom of the spreadsheet.

Q=C x i x A
Q=0.0695918 cfs
Manufacturer: Contech
Cartridge Height: 18in.

Cartidge Media (if applicable):Phosphosorb
G.U.L.D. Cartridge Treatment Flowrate (CTF): 12.53 gpm/cartridge # Cartridges=[Q x (449 gpm/cfs)] / CTF
# Cartridges =2.493753 (round up)
# Cartridges Required=3
Treatment Flow Rate Capacity=0.083719 cfs

MEDIA FILTER SIZING
DMA # 14
A= 17311s.f. A= 0.39741acre
Area* Weighted C Value (s.f.) C Value Rainfall Intensity (i)

0.9 17,236 i =0.2

0.8 0

0.897

0.7 0

0.1 75
* Input Values by hand or use Table at the bottom of the spreadsheet.

Q=C x i x A
Q=0.0712576 cfs
Manufacturer: Contech
Cartridge Height: 18in.

Cartidge Media (if applicable):Phosphosorb
G.U.L.D. Cartridge Treatment Flowrate (CTF): 12.53 gpm/cartridge # Cartridges=[Q x (449 gpm/cfs)] / CTF
# Cartridges =2.553444 (round up)
# Cartridges Required=3
Treatment Flow Rate Capacity=0.083719 cfs
STORMWATER NOTES C5.02
770732901-0101-CG501-0101

ALL GREY COPY IS RAISED

UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE
Ø 4.00"

0.18" CORNER RADIUS

0.187" EMBOSSING HEIGHT 0.040"

SECTION VIEW
NOTES

CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL STORMWATER TREATMENT MEASURE
SIGNAGE IN THE FORM OF A CITY APPROVED MEDALLION #
STDM-19323-SSPS, OR EQUIVALENT. THE MEDALLION MUST BE COMMERCIAL

GRADE STAINLESS-STEEL, ALUMINUM, BRASS OR BRONZE AND EITHER STAMPED FROM SHEET METAL OR CAST.

THE MEDALLION COLOR MUST BE NONREFLECTIVE BLUE OR GREEN AND BE

AFFIXED TO A CLEAN, PREPARED SURFACE WITH ADHESIVES, FASTENERS OR HEAT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE MEDALLION MUST INCLUDE THE WORDS “STORMWATER TREATMENT MEASURE - DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE” AND BE WEATHERPROOF.

MEDALLION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT EACH CURB OPENING LOCATION OR 10’ APART IF MULTIPLE CURB OPENINGS". IF THERE ARE NO CURB OPENING(S) THEN PLACE 10’ APART.

FOR INFORMATION ONLY: MEDALLION PART # STDM-19323-SSPS CAN BE PURCHASED THROUGH ALMETEK INDUSTRIES, INC.: WWW.ALMETEK.COM OR CALL (800) 248-2080. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR MAY PURCHASE FROM ANY SOURCE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CALL THE CITY OF SAN JOSE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT (408) 945-3000 FOR MORE INFO.

PROJECT SITE INFORMATION:

1. SOILS TYPE: PRIMARILY CLAY

2. GROUND WATER DEPTH: APPROX. 20' BELOW GROUND SURFACE

3. NAME OF RECEIVING BODY: GUADALUPE RIVER

4. FLOOD ZONE: D

5. FLOOD ELEVATION (IF APPLICABLE): N/A

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
INFORMATION:

I. PROPERTY INFORMATION:

II. RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTENANCE:
·
·
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 12:28 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C5.02 Document Code:

Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 38 ends

LOBBY

CO-WORK
GARAGE
OFFICE
MAIL
STAIR 2
STAIR
A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0

BOOSTER PUMP ROOM

ELECTRICAL ROOM

BIKE STORAGE

FIRE PUMP

ELECTRICAL ROOM

NEW PROPOSED BUILDING
0' 10' 20'
TRUE
NORTH
PROJ
NORTH
325 GIFFORD AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 JUNE 30, 2026
LEGEND

FIRE PREVENTION NOTES
FIRE PROTECTION PLAN C6.00
770732901-0101-CW103-0101
1"=10'
THE GIFFORD (H25-039)
Date: 6/30/2026 Time: 13:23 User: aturner Style Table: Langan.stb Layout: C6.00 Document Code:

1 PROPERTY LINE
2 3 4
Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 39 ends

TREE DISPOSITION (GROUND FLOOR)

ALL STREET TREES WITHIN THE LIMIT OF WORK ARE PLANNED FOR REMOVAL DUE TO

CONFLICT WITH CIVIL OR ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR DUE TO ASSUMED UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT WITH CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. SEE THIS SHEET FOR TREE INVENTORY.

STREET TREE NOTE:

ACTUAL STREET TREE LOCATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY PUBLIC WORKS AT THE STREET IMPROVEMENT STAGE ON THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THE

INSTALLATION OR REMOVAL OF THE STREET TREES REQUIRES A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THE CITY ARBORIST WILL SPECIFY THE SPECIES.

TREE INVENTORY PHOTOS:
1 2
3 4
5 4
DESIGN INTENT (GROUND FLOOR):

AT THE GROUND LEVEL, LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO STREET TREE WELLS, NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE, AND STANDARD (TO BE DETERMINED) CITYREQUIRED FURNISHINGS AND FINISHES, PER CITY DIRECTION. PROPOSED STREET

TREES WILL BE PLACED TO COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, UTILITIES, PARKING, EXISTING-TO-REMAIN STREET LIGHTS AND OTHER STRUCTURES.

WIDENED SIDEWALK ALONG GIFFORD

STREET, REFER TO CIVIL PLANS

STREET TREE GRATE

WIDENED SIDEWALK ALONG W SAN

CARLOS STREET, REFER TO CIVIL PLANS
4 1
5 3

PROPOSED STREET TREE
(ALONG W. SAN CARLOS ST.)
BOTANICAL: CARPINUS BETULUS
‘FASTIGIATA’
COMMON: UPRIGHT EUROPEAN

HORNBEAM
QUANTITY: 3
SIZE: 24” BOX
SPACING: 30’ O.C.

PROPOSED STREET TREE
(ALONG GIFFORD AVE.)
BOTANICAL: TRISTANIOPSIS

LAURINA
COMMON: WATER GUM
QUANTITY: 8
SIZE: 24” BOX
SPACING: 20’ O.C.

DECORATIVE PLANTER POTS
2 6
3 1 2
6 5

PROPERTY LINE
5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 40 ends

DESIGN INTENT (SECOND FLOOR COURTYARD):

THE 2ND FLOOR PODIUM-LEVEL COURTYARD DESIGN AIMS TO PROVIDE A MULTIFUNCTIONAL SPACE FOR RESIDENTS. AT THE HEART OF THE COURTYARD, AN OPEN

PLAZA IS DESIGNED FOR RESIDENTS TO SOCIALIZE AND LOUNGE IN THE NEARBY SPA. THE NORTHERN STRETCH OF THE COURTYARD IS CHARACTERIZED BY A MULTIUSE TURF AREA FOR OPEN-AIR FITNESS, LOUNGING, OR LARGER GATHERINGS. THE

SOUTHERN END OF THE SPACE BREAKS OUT INTO MORE INTIMATE SPACES FOR SMALLER GROUPS, AND ONE-ON-ONE MOMENTS. RESIDENT ROOMS LOOK OUT ONTO THE COURTYARD, BUFFERED BY LUSH PLANTINGS. FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERS ARE

STRATEGICALLY LOCATED ACROSS THE PODIUM-LEVEL TO CAPTURE AND TREAT ROOF RUNOFF.
9 4
1 DINING AREA

MULTI-USE TURF AREA

FLOW-THROUGH

PLANTER

SEE CIVIL PLANS

BENCH SEATING
ACCENT TREE 1
BOTANICAL: LAURUS ‘SARATOGA’
COMMON: SARATOGA LAUREL
SIZE: 24” BOX

SPECIES MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

DOG PLAY AREA

WOOD DECKING

FESTOON LIGHTS
SPA
60” HEIGHT FENCE

DECORATIVE HARDSCAPE

SHOWER AREA

PEBBLE SEATING

CONVENTIONAL PLANTER
SAUNA
3 1
4 5
2 6
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
8 17
6 19
7 2
FLOW-THROUGH PLANTS MAY INCLUDE:

CAREX PANSA - DUNE SEDGE

CAREX DIVULSA - BERKELEY SEDGE

CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM - CAPE RUSH

JUNCUS PATENS - CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH

STIPA ARUNDINACEA - NEW ZEALAND WIND GRASS
15 DOG WASH AREA

COUNTER HEIGHT LEDGE W/
GRILLS
ACCENT TREE 2
BOTANICAL: OLEA EUROPAEA ‘ SEVILLANO’
COMMON: SEVILLANO OLIVE TREE

SPECIES MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
SIZE: 48” BOX
8 9
7 STORMWATER CONTROL PLANTING NOTES (FLOW-THROUGH PLANTERS): ORNAMENTAL PLANTS MAY INCLUDE:

ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORA ‘MYERSII’ - FOXTAIL ASPARAGUS

BUXUS SEMPERVIRENS - BOXWOOD

EUONYMUS JAPONICUS - EVERGREEN EUONYMUS

HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS - BLUE OAT GRASS

JUNCUS PATENS - CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘PLATINUM BEAUTY’ - MAT RUSH

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA - PINE MUHLY
MYRTUS COMMUNIS ‘COMPACTA’ - DWARF MYRTLE
OLEA EUROPAEA ‘LITTLE OLLIE’ - DWARF OLIVE

PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM - KOHUHU

RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA - COFFEEBERRY

SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA - SNAKE PLANT

1. Include three (3) inches of composted, non-fl oatable mulch in areas between plantings.

2. Project will not locate trees within the basin or bank planting zones of Bioretention Areas, but rather on the upland planting zones per Appendix D of the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Trees will also not be located directly in line with or next to stormwater inlets (curb openings, bubble box emitters, etc.) and will offset or relocated trees where necessary outside of the Bioretention Area basin and bank planting zones to maximize runoff dispersal throughout Bioretention Areas.
13 16
4 5
10 3
11 18
18 6
9 12
14 RAISED PLANTER
5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 41 ends

3 6

DECORATIVE PAVING AWNING WITH LED LIGHTING
(PEDESTAL SYSTEM)
1 2
DESIGN INTENT (EIGHTH FLOOR TERRACE):

THE EIGHTH FLOOR (PENTHOUSE) TERRACE IS A SOCIAL HOTSPOT FOR THE BUILDING, AND IS DESIGNED TO FACILITATE CONNECTIVITY. CONVENTIONAL PLANTERS FRAME OUT THE SPACE THROUGHOUT THE TERRACE.

ORNAMENTAL PLANTS MAY INCLUDE:

AGAVE ‘BOUTIN BLUE’ - BOUTIN BLUE AGAVE
ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORA ‘MYERSII’ - FOXTAIL ASPARAGUS

BUXUS SEMPERVIRENS - BOXWOOD

EUONYMUS JAPONICUS - EVERGREEN EUONYMUS

HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS - BLUE OAT GRASS

JUNCUS PATENS - CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘PLATINUM BEAUTY’ - MAT RUSH

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA - PINE MUHLY
MYRTUS COMMUNIS ‘COMPACTA’ - DWARF MYRTLE
OLEA EUROPAEA ‘LITTLE OLLIE’ - DWARF OLIVE

PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM - KOHUHU

RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA - COFFEEBERRY

SANSEVIERIA TRIFASCIATA - SNAKE PLANT

RAISED PLANTER HEATED SEATING

SLIDING DOOR

ARTIFICIAL GREEN WALL

DECORATIVE PLANTER

FIREPLACE
3 5
4 6
7 8
1 2
8 5
4 7
5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 42 ends

All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect.

FLOOR 1 - PLAN 1"=10' AP2.01
THE GIFFORD (H24-039)

MAXIMIZING NORTH FACING VIEWS (DOWNTOWN) DESIGNED FOR SOCIAL GATHERING

VEGETATION FOR SPATIAL DELINEATION AMBIANCE LIGHTING DIVERSE MIX OF GATHERING SPACES AND SEATING OPTIONS

SHARED INDOOR/OUTDOOR SPACE

ENGAGING WITH THE STREETSCAPE AND PUBLIC REALM SOFTENING THE BUILDING/STREETSCAPE INTERFACE WIDENED SIDEWALKS GROUND LEVEL / STREETSCAPE PODIUM-LEVEL COURTYARD LEVEL 8 TERRACE

OUTDOOR COVERED DINING AND LOUNGING SPACE GROUP LOUNGING 5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set

Page 43 ends

12'-0"X18'-0"
9'-0"X18'-0" UP 9'-0"X18'-0" 9'-0"X18'-0"
8'-6"X22'-0" 8'-6"X22'-0" 9'-0"X18'-0" 9'-0"X18'-0" 9'-0"X18'-0" 36 Bikes
20 Bikes 12 Bikes ______ AP3.00 2 ______ AP3.00 1 ______ AP3.02 2 ______ AP3.02 1 GARAGE ELEV STAIR LOBBY STAIR 2 CHUTE DISCHARGE ROOM MPOE BOOSTER PUMP ROOM MAIL A4.0 S1.0 S1.0 S1.0 CORRIDOR PACKAGE FIRE PUMP SPA MECH BIKE STORAGE GIFFORD AVE WEST SAN CARLOS BREAK ROOM OFFICE OFFICE CO-WORK ELEV CONTROL S1.0 ELECTRICAL ROOM ELECTRICAL ROOM 1 AP3.20 ______ 1 AP3.21 ______ LOADING CAR STACKER CAR STACKER LOADING 26FT BOX TRUCK 26FT BOX TRUCK 10'-0" UNLOADING SPACE MIN 32'-0" 9'-0"
ATTEMP
ATTEMP All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. URBAN CATALYST - THE GIFFORD OCTOBER 15, 2025 TR0.1 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1: SITE PLAN TRASH ROOM TR1.0 STAGING ALONG GIFFORD AVE. (H24-039) 259'-4" (SERVICE ENTRANCE TO PRIMARY ENTRANCE DISTANCE) 5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set Page 44
DN UP ______ AP3.00 2 ______ AP3.00 1 ______ AP3.02 2 ______ AP3.02 1 B1.2 A1.0 A1.1 A1.1 A3.0 B2.0 A1.1 A1.1 A1.1 A1.1 B2.0 S2.2 S2.0 S2.0 B1.0 B1.0 S2.1 S3.0 B2.1 B3.0 A2.0 A1.0 S4.0 S4.0 A1.1 A2.0 B1.1 B1.3 A1.1 S4.0 S4.0 S5.0 A1.3 A1.2 B1.2 STAIR STAIR 2 TRASH IDF A1.4 A1.1 A1.1 S2.2 IDF IDF A1.1 1 AP3.20 ______ 1 AP3.21 ______ S4.0 A1.1 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. URBAN CATALYST - THE GIFFORD OCTOBER 15, 2025 TR0.1 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVELS 4-7: TYP FLOOR PLAN UPPER FLOOR VESTIBULE TR1.0 (H24-039) 5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set Page 45
2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER WASTE 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER RECYCLING 4'-0" STACKED POWER PACKS 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER WASTE 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER RECYCLING 3'-0" EXIT DOOR 10'-0" ROLL-UP DOOR 1'-1114"
3'-812" 2'-6" OPENING64 GAL CART WASTE 2'-6" OPENING 18x18 SH AUTOMATIC OPENING ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED THRU-WALL INTAKE DOOR 64 GAL CART RECYCLING 8'-0" 7'-6" BIG JOE D40 22" X 48" ELECTRICAL PALLET TRUCK. 4000LBS CAPACITY 3'-10" BETWEEN
CHUTES (2) 30"Ø GALV. STEEL CHUTES W/ 34"Ø FLOOR OPENINGS 3'-312" WALL TO WALL 1'-8" 3'-10" BETWEEN
CHUTES
6'-014" 5'-0" ADA TURNING CIRCLE WR (2) SELF CLOSING, 15 x 18 BH AUTOMATIC OPENING DOOR 3'-0" 3'-0" EXIT DOOR 1'-8" 2'-1" CENTER TO INTAKE All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. URBAN CATALYST - THE GIFFORD OCTOBER 15, 2025 TR1.0 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1: TRASH ROOM 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 LEVELS 2-8: UPPER FLOOR VESTIBULES (H24-039) 5 Attachment G: Permit Plan Set Page 46
Santa Rita Trust
Dina Casanova and Jamie Casanova, Trustees
July 14, 2026
Sent by Electronic Mail
Jerad Ferguson, Hearing Officer/Principal Planner
Christopher Burton, Director
Jacqueline Guerrero, Project Manager
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street,
San Jose CA 95113
Re: Director Hearing on July 15, 2026 for the Site Development Permit for “The Gifford” located at 470 West San Carlos Street. File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225. Applicant:

Urban Catalyst
Dear Director Burton, Hearing Officer Ferguson, and Ms. Guerrero, As the Trustees of the Santa Rita Trust, that holds legal title to the properties located at 331 and 379 Gifford Avenue (“Santa Rita Properties”), we are requesting that this letter be entered into and become part of the administrative record for the Director Hearing and any subsequent appeal.

Santa Rita Properties is adjacent to The Gifford on the East side, and as Trustees we share some of the same concerns as the neighbors and have unique concerns regarding our properties since we are right next to the proposed development and also have a commercial tenant at Santa Rita Properties. In reviewing the documents there are many gaps of information, resulting in several questions. Following are some of our concerns and requests:

Comment from Santa Rita Trust Re: Director Hearing File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 1 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 1

1. Traffic Safety
● We have concerns about traffic safety during construction and after the building is finished.
● A Potential lack of visibility when exiting the driveway used by Santa Rita Properties and its commercial tenant.
● Santa Rita Properties must have unimpeded access to our driveway and buildings at all times.
● To our knowledge there has not been any traffic or transportation analysis or report examining the proposed use of 276 units with 217 parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, visitors, deliveries, exiting and entering (two way traffic) onto Gifford Ave right next to the Santa Rita Properties’ driveway.

Request: Conduct a transportation analysis. Based on the analysis, determine with neighborhood input whether the traffic exiting onto Gifford Avenue should be restricted to flow to the left out of the driveway to maintain traffic safety.

2. Fire Safety
● There are fire safety concerns about the lack of separation between the Santa Rita Properties building which is adjacent to the East side of The Gifford building due to the zero setback.

Request: Provide an analysis of the Fire Code and the criteria used to determine fire safety under The Giffords proposed Site Development Permit Request

3. The Dog Park
● We have a concern about the dog park located on the 2nd floor at the property line and open (slated metal fence) to Santa Rita Properties. This creates a potential for a noise nuisance, light spillage from the open area, odor and potential for dogs to urinate on the side of the fence and onto Santa Rita Properties.

Request: Require the applicant to create a sound barrier between the dog park and Santa Rita Properties, shield any light spillage on our property, locate waste receptacles away from the property line, and create a barrier to prevent liquid seepage through the fence and onto Santa Rita Properties.

4. Proposed Grading and construction
● We have a concern about the impact to Santa Rita Properties as a result of the proposed grading, substantial dig, construction and the impact from the underground parking and wall on the East side of The Gifford.

Request: A detailed plan from the Applicant as information becomes available to ensure structural integrity of Santa Rita Properties and its structures during construction.

Comment from Santa Rita Trust Re: Director Hearing File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 2 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 2
The Trustees of the Santa Rita Trust appreciate your assistance and consideration in this matter and are willing to work with the City and the Applicant to resolve these concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Santa Rita Trust
Dina Casanova and Jamie Casanova, Trustees
Cc: Urban Catalyst: Mike Walsh Projects Director
Comment from Santa Rita Trust Re: Director Hearing File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 3 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 3
Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Page 4 9/22/26, 4:51 PM Attachment H: Public Comments H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook Page 4 � Outlook
Re: Proposed new use for 311 Gifford
From Jake Lavin
Date Sun 6/14/2026 12:52 PM
To Guerrero, Jacqueline <[email protected]> Cc Sutherl and,\ ! Imattbernardis <[email protected]>; Lee, Lynn <Theresalynn.Lee @sanjoseca.gov>; � Sarah � � Springer' ;Joshua Burroughs <[email protected]>; Mike Walsh <mwalsh@ur bancatalyst.com>; Bert Weaver ; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Meiners, Laura <[email protected]>
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Hi Jacqueline and Matt, the neighborhood has learned that the City is voting on Tuesday to provide two direct financial contributions to Urban Catalyst to construct the Gifford Project even though the project has not had a public hearing. Given that, it is imperative to understand if any progress has been made on addressing the neighborhood's feedback concerning the design of the project. Could you please provide a response tomorrow so we know the status ahead of the City's vote to approve the Gifford Project. The outstanding design issues are:
• Inadequate setback/massing along Gifford. Floors 2-8 are composed as a solid 240' wall that is set back 8' from the face of curb (not the property line, the curb). The balconies will extend out to within 2' from the curb (not the property line, the curb). This is unprecedented and inadequate for a narrow street like Gifford. At least 2' additional feet of setback is needed.

Below I suggested one seemingly easy fix. Another easy fix is to install bulbouts in the place of 2-3 parking spaces on Gifford. There are many design solutions. • Lack of architectural detail with a checkerboard paint job substituting for a high quality design that should be expected in San Jose on a prominent corner (not to mention with the City subsidizing the project). There are many design solutions within the spec level and budget for this project. Several were brainstormed in prior emails. • Plan for pedestrian crossing at Gifford and San Carlos. This is not a request to construct the crossing, just to have a plan for this long-promised and desperately needed safety measure.

Doesn't the City and developer want there to be a plan for this crossing before the Gifford Project is constructed?
• Add bulbout at San Carlos for safety and enhancement of the property like what the City is doing on San Carlos a few thousand feet to the west. The project is already demolishing this area for the new storm drain, utility undergrounding, etc - why not put it back in a way that is a long-term enhancement to the neighborhood?
• Trash pickup from San Carlos like the other commercial properties. https://outlook.cloud. microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1 hNGVKLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtldH2T6XzNSjDeQ. .. 1/20 Thanks - Jake
On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 3:37 PM Jake Lavin wrote:

Hi Matt and Jacqueline, below is a suggestion for how the project could gain an extra 2' that is so badly needed for the setback along Gifford. Let me know your thoughts. This change would result in a setback condition of 12' to the ground floor and 10' to the upper floors along Gifford. That is still very tight, but much better than the current proposal. Thanks - Jake On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 4:01 PM Guerrero, Jacqueline <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jake,
Thank you for following up with your additional comments and feedback for the proposed project. I have reviewed the items outlined in the email. Please see my response below:

Pedestrian Crossing at Gifford and San Carlos – This question is more targeted towards our Department of Transportation team. I have reached out to them for more information and am waiting to hear back. I will follow up with more information once I receive it.

Bulbouts – This question is more for our Public Works team and Department of Transportation team. The Department of Transportation is responsible for trafficcalming measures in the City. While the Public Works team provides the standard sidewalk improvements required for a project. I will follow up with more information once I receive it.

Garbage – Currently, the proposal is showing that garbage collection is occurring from Gifford Avenue. I have reached out to our waste management team, who is reviewing this project to see if there are any issues with relocating the collection entrance to West San Carlos. I will follow up with more information once I receive it.

Design Example – A lot of the projects in Downtown San Jose have had a small setback for their frontage. Some examples of the projects I have recently gotten 9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 2/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 5
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] approved are Fountain Alley and the Arbor project. The plans for those projects should be available online at www.sjpermits.org. The associated file numbers are H24-049 and H24-050, which are the project file numbers.

Stucco/façade details – The project uses stone on the ground floor and stucco on the upper floors. The use of different stucco and window colors creates visual interest on the facades. This aligns with the design standards noted for the Downtown Design Guidelines. I've included screenshots of these standards. These sections noted below are located on 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 on the Downtown Design Guidelines page.

I will be following up with additional information, but please feel free to reach out with any further comments or questions.

Best,
Jacqueline Guerrero, Development Review Planner
Planning Division, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department City of San José | 200 E. Santa Clara Street | San José, CA 95113 Mobile: 408.535.8235 | [email protected]

From: Jake Lavin >
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 8:33 PM
To: Sutherland, Kathy ; mattbernardis <[email protected]>; Lee, Lynn <[email protected]>; Sarah Springer ; Joshua Burroughs <[email protected]>; Mike Walsh <[email protected]>; Bert Weaver ; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Guerrero, Jacqueline <[email protected]>; Meiners, Laura <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposed new use for 311 Gifford
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hi all, thank you for the meeting. I was hoping that there could have been more discussion.

Unfortunately, the meeting was cut off when my hand was still raised. We did not get a chance to discuss the importance of advancing a plan to beautify the underpass. That should be a big priority for everyone on this email.

I was honestly surprised that Urban Catalyst was not prepared to make a definitive statement about being a responsible site owner if the project does not move forward and about making 9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 3/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 6
some improvements to the plan between now and final approval. The neighborhood's thoughtful remarks balanced with support for the project were teed up for Urban Catalyst to say "we're going to take these remarks to heart and make some improvements". That is how homegrown developers who want to be the top dog in the City endear themselves to the City and community.

Will there be any effort on the part of Urban Catalyst to consider refinement of the plans? Laura and Jacqueline, the project needs some work on the City side. What is the plan for the long-promised pedestrian crossing at Gifford and San Carlos? Will the City require that garbage be picked up from the San Carlos entrance? I heard Urban Catalyst suggest that there is commercial service on Gifford Ave. Yes, two small businesses have garbage service on Gifford but the service is only once a week. This project will have garbage pickup every day or every other day. The garbage needs to be accessed from San Carlos. On the design side, can you point to another project with similar massing (i.e. a solid 8' story box) that has a 240' frontage and only a 8' setback? I really would love to see a good example. It can be anywhere in the Bay Area or LA.

Would the City allow bulbouts (at the corner and one or two more on Gifford) to allow for the trees/landscaping to move into the street so there could be a little breathing room along the building? Is the City going to require Urban Catalyst to do some additional study of how it might improve the aesthetics? Is there an image or description from any of the City's design guidelines that supports approving an all-stucco flat building with flat windows? Thanks again for the consideration of our feedback. I look forward to a response and I would be happy to meet off-line. I think this stretch of the San Carlos can and should redevelop quickly. It really is a great location for this project. Thanks - Jake (408-892-6365) On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 6:12 PM Jake Lavin wrote:

Hi everyone, I want to share my thoughts before the community meeting.

First of all, I am very supportive of seeing this site developed with the proposed use. I am prepared to deal with a few more years of construction activities (we are already into year 5!!!) to facilitate the project. With that said, I would like to see a real plan by Urban Catalyst and the City to deal with the scenario where the development does not proceed in a timely fashion. What is the agreement as to how Urban Catalyst will manage the site if it does not proceed with the project? It is not OK to leave the site as a fenced yard and leave the community to deal with the weeds, trash, graffiti, vagrants, rodents, etc. I would like to hear that the developer and City have reached an acceptable agreement on this issue as part of the discretionary approvals. And the City should do this with all projects.

Here are my comments on the project. All in all, with further study and adjustments, I think this project can really help catalyze the improvement of San Carlos. It is a great location. The residents of the project will be drawn to its proximity to a livelier downtown (applause to the City!) and Caltrain. Pedestrian safety and experience should be a shared priority for the developer, City and community.

1. Kudos on the sawtooth windows and corner treatment! I appreciate seeing something innovative with the architecture.
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 4/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 7

2. The architecture is otherwise very boxy. I understand the need to make the project pencil, so I am not advocating for a redesign. Keeping with the same basic program of 281 units, can there be a second bank of balconies on Gifford? That would do wonders for breaking up the façade. Could the windows be recessed? That is always a timeless approach. Finally, to me, the most redeeming features of the design are the use of the metal panels to break up the stucco and the use of dark framed windows. Will Urban Catalyst commit to retaining these materials as the design progresses through construction?

3. I am not seeing the utility undergrounding on the plans. Did I miss something? It has always been communicated to us that the project would be undergrounding the overhead lines/poles across the project frontage.

4. Trash and service access should be via the San Carlos garage entrance, no different than the other commercial properties on San Carlos. The prior project design had it on San Carlos.

5. The residential experience on Gifford should be improved. The ground level of the building is only 10’ from the curbline. And floors 2-8 (i.e. from elevation 15'-90') are cantilevered over the ground level and are only 8’ from the curbline. That is seriously tight!!! I am in favor of maxing out every square inch, but a project this large needs to feel comfortable and residential at the ground level. Could the ground floor be recessed back by another 1’-2’, thus increasing the cantilever, to gain a little more room for some base landscaping? Could the trees be moved into 2-3 landscaped bulbouts in the street (and then reduce the number of trees)? I would love for the City and developer to come up with some improvements for the pedestrian and renter experience.

6. Speaking of bulbouts, the Gifford and San Carlos corner is a great candidate for one! Currently, visibility from Gifford is often significantly blocked by cars parked on San Carlos. Exiting drivers have to take a leap of faith in order to make a left turn onto San Carlos (or dare to attempt the angled crossing of San Carlos). In addition, Gifford is a known shortcut to 87, and some drivers pull into Gifford way too fast. I have had a few close encounters crossing Gifford within the crosswalk! A generous bulb out would address both of these issues and make the building corner look even nicer.

7. What is the plan for the pedestrian crossing at Gifford and San Carlos? This can has been kicked down the road for more than 20 years!!! The residents of this project deserve to have a plan. Current residents deserve to have a plan. What is the plan? Ideally the City and developer can come up with a way to fund it now and have the developer build it. Who is coming up with the plan before it is prompted by a tragic accident? We can't expected people to walk down to Josepha or to Delmas to cross the street.

8. I would love to have the City Engineer take a close look at the traffic and circulation issues presented by this project so that everyone gets the best possible plan. As I mentioned, Gifford is a short cut in both directions – to get to 87 or 280 via Auzerais or to get to downtown from Auzerais and avoid the nightmare lights at Woz way. Obviously, I am not thrilled about 281 units of additional traffic impacting this little street. We have one chance to get the traffic and circulation design correct. Can the City Engineer take a close look at the issues and provide their professional advice?
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 5/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 8

9. Finally, will Urban Catalyst be a true urban catalyst and lead the charge to get some minor beautification of the underpass into downtown? During the Super Bowl, the telecast showed San Jose and what did they show? The underpass at Santa Clara with the blue donut lights! Let’s keep it simple and carry out something similar for San Carlos. Put some fun lights and color on the ceiling and call it good. I really appreciate that the Mayor and City Council have emphasized basic beautification around downtown. I have noticed the extra mulching, planting, painting and lighting. Way to go! With the hotel and new housing on San Carlos, it is time to spruce up the underpass.

10.Finally #2, construction noise before the published start hours is so frustrating.

It sucks when the back-up beeping noises are penetrating your skull at 5:30am on a Saturday or Sunday. I know that subs cannot be completely controlled. They don’t read their contracts. They forget what they are told. They show up from Tracy and start working. But they do respond if there are financial consequences.

I would like Urban Catalyst to actually fine the subs that violate the start of work hours. Maybe they already do it??? Urban Catalyst can report on the fines they have collected and use the money to keep the neighbors happy with site management. This would be in addition to the usual City ordinances and remedies.

Thank you – Jake Lavin,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 1:53 PM kathy sutherland wrote:

Thank you for the clarification.

Kathy
Kathy Sutherland
On Apr 30, 2026, at 1:38 PM, Matt Bernardis
wrote:

Hi Kathy We have two garage openings total, one at each end of the building at West San Carlos and at Gifford
thanks,
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 6/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 9
Matt Bernardis
Senior Project Manager
| [email protected]
URBANCATALYST.COM
Follow us on social Facebook Linked In Twitter Instagram ______________________________________
Important Notice and Disclosures The information contained in this e mail message is only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential information If you are not the intended recipient or otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, be advised that you are not permitted to read, print, copy, or disseminate this message, and delete the original message including all attachments The taking of any action in reliance upon the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Unless specifically indicated, nothing in or attached to this message should be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial products or services. Nothing contained in this email, including any and all attachments, is intended to be, nor should it be construed or used as financial, legal, tax or investment advice with respect to any offering. No offering is being made except by delivery of a private placement memorandum, certain organizational documents, subscription agreement, and/or certain other information. A copy of the private placement memorandum, and other related investment documents, will be made available to investors upon request Only accredited investors as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D can invest in Urban Catalyst products. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investments in securities are speculative, involve a high degree of risk, and are not suitable for all investors Potential investors should consult their own legal and tax professionals prior to making investment decisions. This message, and its attachments, cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 1:28 PM kathy sutherland
< > wrote:

Hi Matt,
Please confirm the number of entrance/exit points to the parking for your development.

I know there is one on Gifford, but I’m not sure if there is one on San Carlos.

Thank you,
Kathy
Kathy Sutherland
On Feb 27, 2026, at 10:48 AM, Matt Bernardis
> wrote:

Kathy, Bert, Sara, Lynn - Please meeting you all in person yesterday. See below as discussed:

1. Complete, current planning set
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 7/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 10

2. Cross walk: There is no specific requirement to construct a crosswalk. However, we will be required two provide related pedestrian/signal contributions:
$55,000 toward future multi modal pedestrian
improvements MAY end up being used for a crosswalk at
city discretion
$18,000 for signal upgrades including High Visibility
Backplates and Accessible Pedestrian Signals at San Carlos St & Delmas Ave

3. Street tree: Water Gum - The water gum (Tristaniopsis laurina) is a small to medium Australian evergreen tree that grows along creek banks and waterways. It has smooth, attractive bark that peels in patches of yellow, orange, and brown, glossy dark green leaves, and clusters of small yellow flowers in summer. It typically reaches 25–35 feet tall and is popular as an ornamental and street tree.

4. Restricted Parking Passes will not be pursued, and lynn confirmed would not be issued

5. Mike spoke with Swenson about Aquino and noise/light mitigation for after hours work
<image.png>
Matt Bernardis
Senior Project Manager
916.606.3225 |
URBANCATALYST.COM
99 S Almaden Blvd, Ste 600, San Jose CA 95113
Follow us on social Facebook Linked In Twitter Instagram ______________________________________
Important Notice and Disclosures The information contained in this e mail message is only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential information If you are not the intended recipient or otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e mail, be advised that you are not permitted to read, print, copy, or disseminate this message, and delete the original message including all attachments. The taking of any action in reliance upon the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Unless specifically indicated, nothing in or attached to this message should be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial products or services. Nothing contained in this email, including any and all attachments, is intended to be, nor should it be construed or used as financial, legal, tax or investment advice with respect to any offering. No offering is being made except by 9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDeQ… 8/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 11
Attachment H: Public Comments Page 12
9/22/26, 4:51 PM Attachment H: Public Comments H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook del ivery of a private placement memorandum, certain organizational documents, subscription agreement, and/or certain other information A copy of the private placement memorandum, and other related investment documents, will be made available to investors upon request Only accredited investors as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D can invest in Urban Catalyst products. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

I nvestments in securities are speculative, involve a high degree of risk, and are not suitable for all investors. Potential investors should consult their own legal and tax professionals prior to making investment decisions This message, and its attachments, cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.

On Fri , Feb 1 3, 2026 at 1 :06 PM kathy sutherland
> wrote:
e 26th.

Jake will send h i s comments.

Please confirm the exact time!
And hopefully we can sti ll meet at the site.

Thanks!
Kathy
Kathy Sutherland
On Friday, February 13, 2026 at 08: 11: 22AM PST, Sarah Springer wrote:

Bert and I are available on 2/26 between noon and 2pm. Hesitant about Jake not being there.

Sarah
From: Lee, Lynn <TheresaLynn. [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 6:42 PM
To: Jake Lavin ; Sutherland, Kathy
ncatalyst.com>; Sarah
Spri ng ; Joshua Burroughs
<[email protected]>; Mike Walsh
<wzuizu_uw_._vi>; Bert Weaver
; Mulcahy, Mi chael
<Mi chael. Mulcahy@sanjoseca. gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed new use for 311 Gifford
HiAll,

Page 12 ends

https://outlook.cloud. microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtldH2T6XzNSjDeQ... 9/20 [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]
Kathy - I am available as well on 2/26 between noon and 2pm.

Hopefully this time works for others as well.

Lynn Lee
Chief of Staff
Office of Councilmember Michael Mulcahy
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San José, CA 95113
408.535.4906
<image001.png>
From: Jake Lavin
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 3:18:37 PM
To: Sutherland, Kathy >
Cc: mattbernardis <[email protected]>; Sarah Springer ; Lee, Lynn
<[email protected]>; Joshua Burroughs
<[email protected]>; Mike Walsh
<[email protected]>; Bert Weaver
; Mulcahy, Michael
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed new use for 311 Gifford
You don't often get email from
. Learn why this is
important
Hi Kathy, sorry, I will be out of town on the 26th. The following week is open. But feel free to move forward without me, I can send my thoughts in advance. Thanks - Jake
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 10/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 13
On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 2:57 PM kathy sutherland
wrote:

Will Thursday the 26th sometime between noon and 2:00 work? I’m available then and it sounds like it will work for Matt and the UC crew.

Kathy Sutherland
On Feb 12, 2026, at 1:05 PM, Matt Bernardis
<[email protected]> wrote:

Ok we can do same times the following week
Matt Bernardis
Senior Project Manager
|
mattbernardis@urbancatalyst com
URBANCATALYST.COM
Follow us on social Facebook Linked In Twitter Instagram ______________________________________
Important Notice and Disclosures The information contained in this e mail message is only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, proprietary, and/or confidential information If you are not the intended recipient or otherwise received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e mail, be advised that you are
not permitted to read, print, copy, or disseminate this message, and delete the original message including all attachments The taking of any action in reliance upon the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited Unless specifically indicated, nothing in or attached to this message should be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial products or services Nothing contained in this email, including any and all attachments, is intended to be, nor should it be construed or used as financial, legal, tax or investment advice with respect to any offering No offering is being 9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 11/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 14
Attachment H: Public Comments Page 15
9/22/26, 4:51 PM Attachment H: Public Comments H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook made except by delivery of a private placement memorandum, certain organizational documents, subscription agreement, and/or certain other i nformation. A copy of the private placement memorandum, and other related investment documents, will be made available to investors upon request. Only accredited investors as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D can invest in Urban Catalyst products. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investments in securities are speculative, involve a high degree of risk, and are not suitable for all investors. Potential investors should consult their own legal and tax professionals prior to making investment decisions. This message, and its
attachments, cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of errors or viruses.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 12:27 PM Sarah Springer
> wrote:

Bert and I are out of town all week.

Get Outlook for Android
From: kathy sutherland
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 12:23:16 PM
To: Lynn Lee
<TheresaLynn. Lee@sanjoseca. gov>
Cc: mattbernardi s
<mattbernardi s@urbancatalyst. com>; Joshua
Burroughs <jburroughs@urbancatalyst. com>;
Mike <nwaous pm>; Bert
Weav rah
Spri n ; Jake
Lavin I
Mulc�� a via.wuwauy- oseca.gov> Subject: Re: Proposed new use for 311 Gifford
Dear All,
Wednesday 12:30 - 1 :30 will work for me too.

Jake, Bert and Sarah,
Are you available?
And I would prefer to meet at the site unless it's
pouring rain.

Page 15 ends

https://outlook.cloud. microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtldH2T6XzNSjDe. .. 12/20 Kathy
Kathy Sutherland
On Feb 12, 2026, at 12:06 PM, Lee,
Lynn
<[email protected]>
wrote:

Hi Matt,
My name is Lynn Lee and I am
Councilmember Mulcahy’s Chief
of Staff. If possible, I’d also like to
attend this meeting. I’ve marked
in red the times I’m available
within what you proposed, but will
default to what works best for
Kathy, Sarah, and Bert.

Thanks,
Lynn Lee
Chief of Staff
Office of Councilmember Michael
Mulcahy
200 E. Santa Clara Street,
18th Floor
San José, CA 95113
408.535.4906
<image001.png>
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 13/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 16
[External Email. Do not open links
or attachments from untrusted
sources. Learn more]
From: Matt Bernardis
[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026
11:18 AM
To: Sutherland, Kathy
Cc: Joshua Burroughs
[email protected] ;
Mike Walsh
[email protected] ; Bert
Weaver
Sarah
Springer
[email protected] ; Jake
Lavin ;
Mulcahy, Michael
[email protected] ;
Lee, Lynn
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Proposed new use for
311 Gifford
You don't often get email from
[email protected]. Learn why
this is important
Hi Kathy would you be free to
meet at any of the below times
next week. We can meet outside
the site or even at the hotel if that
works better.

Tuesday - 10:00-11:30; 10:00-
11:00am
Wednesday 11:45-2:00; 12:30-
1:30pm
Thursday 12:00-2:00; Lynn Not
Available
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 14/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 17
thanks,
~WRD0000.jpg
Matt Bernardis
Senior Project Manager
|
mattbernardis@urbancatalyst com
URBANCATALYST.COM
Follow us on social Facebook Linked In Twitter
Instagram
____________________________________
__
Important Notice and Disclosures The
information contained in this e mail message is
only for the personal and confidential use of
the intended recipient(s) and may
contain privileged, proprietary, and/or
confidential information If you are not the
intended recipient or otherwise received this
communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by e mail, be advised that you are
not permitted to read, print, copy, or
disseminate this message, and delete the
original message including all attachments
The taking of any action in reliance upon the
information contained in or attached to this
message is strictly prohibited Unless
specifically indicated, nothing in or attached to
this message should be construed as an offer to
sell or a solicitation of any investment products
or other financial products or services Nothing
contained in this email, including any and
all attachments, is intended to be, nor should it
be construed or used as financial, legal, tax or
investment advice with respect to any
offering No offering is being made except by
delivery of a private placement memorandum,
certain organizational documents, subscription
agreement, and/or certain other information A
copy of the private placement memorandum,
and other related investment documents, will be
made available to investors upon request Only
accredited investors as defined in Rule 501 of
Regulation D can invest in Urban Catalyst
products Past performance is not a guarantee
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 15/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 18
of future results. Investments in securities are
speculative, involve a high degree of risk, and
are not suitable for all investors. Potential
investors should consult their own legal and tax
professionals prior to making investment
decisions. This message, and its attachments,
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free of
errors or viruses.

On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 7:57 AM
kathy sutherland
>
wrote:

Good morning Josh,
I noticed a new sign on the
corner of Gifford and San
Carlos.

Never heard back from you
about your new proposal.

And we haven’t been asked to
comment or review.

When will we hear about the
new project?
From what I’ve heard, it is a
very different project and will
have a tremendous impact on
the neighborhood.

This lack of proactive outreach
is extremely concerning.

Kathy Sutherland
On Nov 3, 2025, at
10:53 AM, Joshua
Burroughs
<jburroughs@urban
catalyst.com>
wrote:
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 16/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 19
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for your
note and hope you
had a fun and safe
Halloween
weekend.

Did not mean to
catch you off guard -
we have a submittal
in, but waiting to
hear back from city
planning on their
thoughts and
feedback - we
typically receive a
30-day letter but
can take 45-60 days
sometimes.

I'll defer to the
council office as far
as timing for a
meeting - probably
makes sense to
meet after we've
received the
comments back
from planning
department on the
intake.

Talk soon,
-Josh
~WRD0000.jpg
Joshua Burroughs

PARTNER
[email protected]
URBANCATALYST.COM
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 17/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 20
Follow us on social Facebook
Linked In Twitter Instagram
_____________________
_________________
Important Notice and
Disclosures The
information contained in this
e mail message is only
for the personal and
confidential use of
the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged,
proprietary, and/or
confidential information
If you are not the intended
recipient or otherwise
received this communication
in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e
mail, be advised that you are
not permitted to read, print,
copy, or disseminate this
message, and delete the
original message including
all attachments The taking
of any action in reliance
upon the information
contained in or attached to
this message is strictly
prohibited Unless
specifically indicated,
nothing in or attached to this
message should be
construed as an offer to sell
or a solicitation of any
investment products or other
financial products or
services Nothing contained
in this email, including any
and all attachments, is
intended to be, nor should it
be construed or used as
financial, legal, tax or
investment advice with
respect to any offering No
offering is being made
except by delivery of a
private placement
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 18/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 21
Attachment H: Public Comments Page 22
9/22/26, 4:51 PM Attachment H: Public Comments H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook memorandum, certain
organizational documents,
subscription agreement,
and/or certain other
information. A copy of
the private placement
memorandum, and other
related investment
documents, will be made
available to investors upon
request. Only accredited
investors as defined in Rule
501 of Regulation D can
invest in Urban Catalyst
products. Past performance
is not a guarantee of future
results. Investments in
securities are speculative,
involve a high degree of
risk, and are not suitable for
all investors. Potential
investors should consult
their own legal and tax
professionals prior to making
investment decisions. This
message, and its
attachments, cannot
be guaranteed to be secure
or free of errors or viruses.

On Sun, Nov 2 ,
2025 at 8:30 AM
kathy sutherland
Good morning
Josh,
I saw an arti cle
that Urban
Catalyst would
like to develop
housi ng at the
corner of Gifford
and San Carlos
instead of
assi sted l i vi ng.

Thi s proposed
change i s very

Page 22 ends

https://outlook.cloud. microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtldH2T6XzNSjDe. .. 19/20 This message is from outside the
City email system. Do not open
links or attachments from untrusted
sources.

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

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

And hearing it
second hand is
also unsettling.

We need to hear
from you, about
your new
proposal and to
discuss the
impacts on the
existing residents.

Please let us
know when you
can meet.

Thank you,
Kathy
Kathy Sutherland
9/22/26, 4:51 PM H25-039 - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/AAMkAGMxMjNjYzMxLTZjNTQtNDkzYS1hNGVkLTIxNTkwMmRmZDdmNgAuAAAAAADP8nhtIdH2T6XzNSjDe… 20/20 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 23
Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments

Page 24 ends

June 24, 2026
Dear Councilmember Mulcahy,
In your email sent to Jake Lavin and me, you stated that you will not be advocating for any changes to the design proposed by Urban Catalyst for the development on the corner of Gifford Ave. and W. San Carlos St. For Delmas Park, this is extremely disappointing. At the community meeting, UC flippantly let us know that this is simply a mirror image of their project on Josefa St. But Josefa and Gifford are extremely different streets and what works for one doesn't work for the other.

We worked for years with City Planning Staff to create clear design guidelines so our neighborhood would be able to enthusiastically welcome new, dense development. This block of Gifford has the largest number of original homes with long term homeowners and renters in Downtown West. Any development proposal should respect the existing homes.

We expected that our years of work with Planning Staff to create design standards would be supported by our councilmember. That is why we participated in the process with Planning Staff and volunteered countless hours to create and receive council approval of design guidelines.

In your email you stated that you would focus on the course of construction and that you will help us mitigate construction impacts. Here are our concerns. • Construction hours should be 7am to 5pm, Monday through Friday for site and building exterior work. Exterior construction noise is extremely loud and given the proximity of the existing 100+ year homes, we need a mental break from the impact.

Once the exterior is complete, construction hours can be extended to 7am to 7pm every day but Sunday.
• The developer will fund an independent assessment by a licensed property inspector of each home (if requested) for cracks to walls and foundations prior to construction. The property owner will hold the report. At the community meeting, UC said they would send in someone to video each home. UC using recording equipment inside any private residence is completely inappropriate. • Excessive noise levels will impact existing homes on the 300 block of Gifford Avenue. UC should replace existing single-paned windows for interested property owners.

S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
• Cement pour work is extremely loud and disruptive, impedes access to our homes, and is not appropriate for multiple hours and days in front of our homes. This work will only be done from W. San Carlos St.
• Construction vehicles with beepers will be only allowed on W. San Carlos St. • To greatly reduce noise impacts, UC should consider constructing a sound barrier along Gifford Avenue at the height of the existing homes. This barrier could be attached to the protected sidewalk.
• This block of Gifford Avenue is currently experiencing numerous sewer and water line failures. The proposed project requires excavation, ground disturbance and vibration which will certainly affect the existing sewer and water lines. Our street is 120+ years old. UC needs to cover the cost to property owners to repair any sewer or water line failure from the beginning of construction to 2 years after certificate of occupancy.
• Trash receptacles for the new development will not be placed along Gifford Avenue.

They will be located closest to W. San Carlos St. Rats and roaches are inevitable, and the receptacles need to be located as far away from the existing homes as possible.
• There are three existing affordable developments within 2 blocks of this site with 363 affordable units. They are the Pensione Esperanza, with 110 SRO units, Delmas Park Apartments with 123 Family units, and Solaire with 64 affordable units and 64 Permanent Supportive Housing units for those experiencing homelessness. The Delmas Park neighborhood supported these developments. If existing design guidelines can be ignored due to the density bonus of 14 affordable units out of 276, we would like Council to not accept these affordable units. We are fully on record supporting both affordable and dense developments. And we are being told these paltry 14 additional units are a justification for the City to compromise on great design.

Once one developer is allowed to build below approved design guidelines, all others will expect the same. W. San Carlos St. is an important, very visible corridor to downtown San Jose. We should hold developers to design standards that honor this. The City Council should honor the hundreds of hours of work done by Planning Staff and community members to create a complete vision for the future of the city we love.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 25
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
What is particularly troubling is that the City is being asked not only to set aside adopted design standards, but also to provide financial assistance and fee reductions to support this project. Public assistance has historically carried additional conditions to ensure accountability and protect the public interest. Public subsidies and fee reductions should improve the project, not simply increase the value of the land. Any public assistance should remain tied to the project. If there is any material change in ownership, control, financial sponsorship, development rights, or management of the project, the City should require community meetings and City Council review before those benefits are transferred to another party.

We would like to meet with you to further discuss this issue. This letter has been sent to residents of the 300 block of Gifford Avenue and respective property owners.

Thank you,
Kathy Sutherland
Laura Winter
Bert Weaver
Sarah Springer
Cc: Lynn Lee
Rosalynn Hughey
Chris Burton
Jacqueline Guerrero
Ruth Cueto
Jared Ferguson
Mayor and Council
Matt Bernardis
Mike Walsh
Attachment H: Public Comments Page 26
July 3, 2026
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Director’s Hearing Officer, City of San José
c/o Jacqueline Guerrero, Project Manager
200 East Santa Clara Street, San José, CA 95113
Re: File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 — “The Gifford,” southwest corner of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue (462–470 W. San Carlos St. / 313–329 Gifford Ave.; APNs 264-20-082, -083, -084, -085, -086, -087, and -088) Dear Director Burton:

We submit these comments on behalf of the Stakeholders + Neighborhoods Initiative (S+NI) and represent the residents and property owners of the Delmas Park neighborhood, in particular the 300 block of Gifford Avenue, which contains the largest concentration of century-old original homes and long-term homeowners and renters in the Downtown West area.

Our neighborhood is not opposed to growth. We have welcomed dense, transit-oriented, and affordable development, and we have the record to prove it: the Pensione Esperanza (110 SRO units), the Delmas Apartments (123 family units), and Solaire (64 affordable units and 64 permanent supportive housing units) are all within two blocks of this site, and our neighborhood supported them. We want to be able to welcome this project, too.

What we cannot support is the applicant’s request to waive the very design standards our neighborhood spent years helping to write and that the City Council has repeatedly adopted. Urban Catalyst proposes an eight-story building that, by the City’s own analysis, is “a building with no setbacks” at the shared property line with our homes. They have asked the City to waive the neighborhood-transition standard and three additional Downtown design standards so that they can construct a monolithic 89-foot interface with existing single-family homes. For the reasons below, we respectfully urge the City to deny those waivers as currently applied and deny the Site Development Permit for the project as currently designed.

The Director Must Be Able to Make the Required Findings Government Code section 65915(e) requires substantial evidence that each requested development standard would physically preclude construction of the project at the permitted density. The current record contains assertions that compliance would reduce units or design efficiency, but does not include architectural studies, engineering analyses, Attachment H: Public Comments Page 27
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
alternative building envelope studies, or comparable evidence demonstrating that compliance is physically impossible. Assertions alone do not constitute substantial evidence.

SB 330 and AB 130 Exemption
The applicant’s assertion of a statutory CEQA exemption under Assembly Bill 130 is legally invalid due to unresolved environmental hazards. Pursuant to the City’s initial environmental review a housing project on a Cortese-listed hazardous materials site is disqualified from an AB 130 exemption unless the applicant provides an official agency determination that the site is currently suitable for residential use.

The record explicitly negates this suitability. An official directive from the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health dated January 5, 2026 establishes that the project site (spanning APNs 264-20-082, -083, -084, -085, -086, -087, and -088) contains shallow soil with "lead-impacted" concentrations that actively exceed the Regional Water Quality Control Board's residential environmental screening levels. The County has only granted a conditional extension to execute a shallow soil removal plan through December 31, 2026, with a final remediation Completion Report not due until April 30, 2027.

The official GeoTracker record for 470 W. San Carlos lists the case status as "Under Investigation" and states "No Remedial Actions Entered." Because the site remains an unremediated hazard and completely lacks a residential suitability sign-off, the Director cannot legally make the findings required to grant an AB 130 exemption. The project must be denied this statutory shortcut and be subjected to full CEQA environmental review.

Density Bonus Waivers
Each requested waiver should be analyzed independently. The record should identify the evidence supporting each statutory finding rather than treating all requested waivers collectively. Based on the current record, the applicant has not demonstrated entitlement to the requested waivers under Government Code section 65915(e).

The project abandons a step-back principle repeated throughout the DSAP, the General Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines.

The parcel sits in the Downtown/Southern Zone
of the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP), directly
abutting parcels designated Residential
Neighborhood (RN) in the General Plan. This
project interface falls within the Lot Line
Stepback Plane (Figure 2-4-7), which was
written into the Amended DSAP’s neighborhoodtransition standard to protect against the type of 89-foot, monolithic interface the developer
proposes.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 28
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
As restated in the City’s own review letter, the standard (Figure 2-4-8) requires that the developer:
“Provide building stepbacks from rear
shared property lines within a
stepback plane of 75 degrees from
horizontal. For building frontage along
a rear shared property line, start the
stepback plane from the intersection
of the rear setback line at a height of
35 feet… Each building stepback
must be a minimum of six feet in
depth… Provide a minimum 15 foot
landscaped buffer for interior lot lines
affected by stepback planes.” —
Amended DSAP, Building Height Transition standards (adopted May 25, 2021) 1 The project as proposed provides none of this. The applicant’s plan set proposes a flat wall rising to over 89 feet with a zero-foot setback along the shared eastern property line, and the applicant concedes that “compliance with the stepback plane would require reducing the building footprint on the east side for multiple floors above 35 feet.” The City’s staff analysis is equally direct: “Currently the project proposal consists of a building with no setbacks, not consistent with the requirement.” There is no dispute that the standard applies and that the building, as proposed, does not meet it.2

The standards the applicant seeks to waive are not isolated technicalities. The requirement that tall new development step down in height, bulk, and scale where it meets 1 Amended Diridon Station Area Plan, neighborhood building height transition standards (Figure 2-4-7/2-4-8), adopted by the City Council on May 25, 2021, as restated in City of San José review letter, File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 (Feb. 27, 2026), p. 2. 2 Applicant plan set, “The Gifford” (File H25-039), Project Information sheet AP0.00 (Jan. 30, 2026); City of San José review letter (Feb. 27, 2026), p. 2 (staff analysis).

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 29
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
an existing lower-scale neighborhood is a principle the City has stated and re-stated at every level of its planning framework — in the General Plan, in the Diridon Station Area Plan, and in the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Envision San José 2040 General Plan (amended August 29, 2025) states it directly in Policy CD-6.3:
“New development within the Downtown Growth Area that is adjacent to existing neighborhoods that are planned for lower intensity development should provide transitions in height, bulk and scale to ensure that the development is compatible with and respects the character of these neighborhoods, as they are designated in the General Plan.” — Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Policy CD-6.33 And Policy CD-4.5 prescribes the very tools the applicant now asks the City to discard:
“For new development in transition areas between identified Growth Areas and nongrowth areas, use a combination of building setbacks, building step-backs, materials, building orientation, landscaping, and other design techniques to provide a consistent streetscape that buffers lower-intensity areas from higher-intensity areas and that reduces potential shade, shadow, massing, viewshed, or other land use compatibility concerns.” — Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Policy CD4.54 These are not the only expressions of the principle. The General Plan repeats it in Policy CD-4.9 (new development must be “consistent or complementary with the surrounding neighborhood fabric”) and Policy CD-6.11 (the City is to “maintain Downtown design guidelines and policies adopted by the City”); the DSAP carries it into a specific, measurable 75-degree step-back plane and landscaped buffer; and the Downtown Design Guidelines carry it into the podium- and skyline-massing standards the applicant also seeks to waive. When a single requirement recurs this consistently across a city’s plans, it is not incidental — it is a deliberate, load-bearing policy adopted precisely to govern situations like this one.

Beyond the stepback, the applicant seeks to waive multiple Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards (adopted April 23, 2019) that also shape how large the building feels from the street and from our yards — including Section 4.3.1 (breaking podium massing wider than 100 feet into articulated masses no wider than 80 feet), Section 4.3.2(c) (stepbacks or notches in long skyline facades to reduce apparent bulk), and Section 5.3.3 (ground-floor residential elevation). Each of these standards exists to reduce perceived mass and improve the pedestrian and neighbor experience. Waiving them one after another, in addition to the transition step-back, allows the monolithic interface the standards were written to prevent. Waiving multiple Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards of such compounding significance for the sake of just 14 VLI units is simply unacceptable.

The City invested years of staff work, extensive community engagement, and public expense to develop and adopt these guidelines. Having made that investment, the City 3 Envision San José 2040 General Plan (amended Aug. 29, 2025), Policy CD-6.3. 4 Envision San José 2040 General Plan (amended Aug. 29, 2025), Policy CD-4.5.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 30
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
should protect and defend them — not set them aside, one waiver at a time, for a single project. Granting these waivers would not merely permit a taller wall on Gifford Avenue; it would signal that a principle the City spent more than a decade building into its plans can be traded away at a staff-level hearing.

At the community meeting, the applicant dismissed our concerns by calling this building a mirror image of its Josefa Street project. But these plans exist so that each site is judged on its own context; Gifford is not Josefa, and the City’s own guidelines require a design that responds to this block’s low-rise, historic character. And the commitment reflected in these plans is a policy commitment, not a financial one; the applicant’s economics do not justify unwinding it.

State law does not compel the City to grant the step-back waiver.

The applicant seeks to erase the step-back through a waiver under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915), based on setting aside five percent of units (about 14 units) for very-low-income households — the minimum the statute recognizes. That setaside entitles the project to one concession and to waivers of development standards, yet the applicant’s own density bonus application requests no concession at all and instead places every deviation, including the neighborhood step-back, in the waiver category. A waiver, however, is available on one condition only: where the development standard would “have the effect of physically precluding the construction of” the project at the permitted density (Gov. Code § 65915(e)). To physically preclude means that the standard makes the project impossible to build, not merely smaller, less efficient, or less profitable.

The statute confines the question to physical possibility; unit count and economics are not part of it.5
On that test, the waiver fails on the applicant’s own numbers. This building is over 89 feet tall on a site with a 110-foot height limit — roughly 21 feet of allowable height goes unused — so the upper floors can be stepped back from our homes and that floor area recovered within the permitted envelope. The project can plainly be built with the step-back; the standard does not physically preclude anything. The burden of proof is the applicant’s, not the neighborhood’s, and on this record it cannot be carried.6 Tellingly, the application does not even attempt the required showing. None of the guidelines the applicant seeks to waive precludes this project from being built. They are basic planning principles — orderly transitions in mass and scale between a high-rise and the low-rise homes beside it. Each can be satisfied through ordinary design changes within the building’s permitted envelope.

Instead, the application justifies every one of its requested waivers by the wrong measure entirely — lost units and design efficiency. The developer argues full compliance with the step-back would “significantly reduce unit sizes on floors 6 through 8, resulting in the loss of units”; the required skyline-massing notch would cause “the loss of at least 6 units”; 5 Cal. Gov. Code § 65915(e). At five percent very-low-income, the project qualifies for one incentive/concession; the City bears the burden of proof for denial of a concession or incentive. Cal. Gov. Code § 65915(d). 6 Building height per City review letter (Feb. 27, 2026), p. 2; 110-foot height limit per DSAP Building Heights (Figure 3-2-1).

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 31
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
and the loading-clearance and ground-floor-elevation standards would reduce “design efficiency.” Fewer or smaller units is not physical impossibility; it is a design outcome the applicant can avoid by redesigning within the 110-foot envelope it has left unused.For the same reason, the applicant’s separate suggestion that SB 330 (Gov. Code § 66300) bars the stepback is misplaced. That statute measures a site’s capacity against what was allowed on January 1, 2018, when the 2014 DSAP governed and contained no such height increase. The 2021 amendment raised heights in this area and added the stepback together. The developer’s application was not deemed complete until March 2026, five years after the amended standard was fully in effect.

Design standards were built through years of community engagement.

The Diridon Station Area design standards the applicant seeks to waive are the product of one of the most extensive community-engagement efforts in the City’s recent history.

Beginning in January 2018, the City Council appointed a 38-organization Station Area Advisory Group (SAAG) that met regularly over a multi-year period. The City conducted successive formal rounds of public outreach in fall 2019, spring 2020, and fall 2020. It partnered with seven community-based organizations to reach residents directly. And, most directly relevant here, it held a dedicated community meeting on August 31, 2021, specifically to shape the neighborhood building-transition and buffer measures that this project now seeks to avoid. Our neighbors participated in that process in good faith, precisely so that new development could be welcomed on terms that respect the existing homes. Waiving these standards for this project would nullify that public investment.7 The General Plan also asks developers to continue that engagement at the project stage — before, not at, the hearing. Policy IP-14.6 directs the City to:
“Encourage project developers to consult with neighborhood groups early in the development review process to resolve potential differences before the public hearing process begins.” — Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Policy IP-14.68 The General Plan further provides that the City shall “ensure that community members have the opportunity to provide input on the design of… private development within their community” (Policy VN-2.3), and that its engagement process “seeks to resolve community concerns in advance of a public hearing” and provides “early engagement when community members may have the greatest ability to impact outcomes” (Policy CE1.7). That did not happen here. Rather than engage our design concerns, the applicant told us the building is a settled, mirror-image design. We ask the City to direct genuine, goodfaith consultation with the neighborhood on substantive design changes occur before this permit advances.9
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan that underpins these design standards was itself the product of a four-year public process (2007–2011): a 37-member, Council-appointed 7 Diridon Station Area Plan (first adopted by the City Council on June 17, 2014; as amended May 25, 2021). 8 Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Policy IP-14.6.
9 Envision San José 2040 General Plan (amended Aug. 29, 2025), Policies VN-2.3 and CE-1.7.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 32
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org
community Task Force that met 51 times, more than 125 outreach meetings, and over 5,000 community participants, before the City Council adopted the Plan in 2011. Waiving an adopted guideline for a single development is therefore not a routine administrative step. Rather, it overrides years of deliberate, community-based policy-making, and sets a precedent every future applicant may invoke. Such waivers should not be granted without meaningful concession from the developers. The 14 very-low-income units the developer is proposing, the statutory minimum, fails to qualify. If the price of these standards is this low, every future developer will expect the same, and the standards, meant to enhance West San Carlos Street as a prominent gateway to Downtown San José, will be rendered ineffectual. The City can, and should, have both the affordable housing and a building that respects the vision for this corridor and the homes beside it.

Refuse and service functions must be located away from our homes, as the design standards require.

The proposed placement of the building’s trash and service functions is a major concern for existing residents and homeowners. Locating refuse enclosures along Gifford Avenue, directly against existing homes, invites odor, rodents, and noise at the most sensitive edge of the site. The design standards already address this. Downtown Design Guidelines Section 3.5.2 directs that, “for a development with multiple frontages, place service entries on a separate frontage from the primary pedestrian and bicycle entrance,” and provides that trash and recycling be located “within the building or in an outdoor trash enclosure,” with the express aim of keeping service functions “further from adjacent buildings.” General Plan Policy CD-1.18 likewise directs placement of “loading docks and other utility uses within parking structures or at other locations that minimize their visibility.” The City recently applied exactly this approach to the applicant’s sister project, conditioning the trash enclosure to be located inside the building and screened from adjacent public space. We ask that the same be required here: locate all refuse, loading, and service functions inside the building or at the West San Carlos Street end of the site, screened, and away from the Gifford Avenue residential frontage.10 Requested action
For the Director’s Hearing of July 15, 2026, S+NI respectfully requests that the City:

1. Deny the requested waiver of the DSAP neighborhood step-back standard, absent a demonstration, which has not been made, that the standard physically precludes the project under Government Code § 65915(e).

2. Deny or decline the related waivers of Downtown Design Guidelines Sections 4.3.1,

4.3.2(c), and 5.3.3, which reduce the building’s apparent mass at the neighborhood edge.
10 San José Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards (Apr. 23, 2019), § 3.5.2 (Service Entrance Location); Envision 2040 General Plan, Policy CD-1.18; see City conditions of approval for the applicant’s Josefa Street (“Madera”) project requiring the trash enclosure within the building and screened from adjacent public space.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 33
S+NI is a 501(c)(3) organization
www.TheSNI.org

3. Condition the permit to locate all refuse, loading, and service functions inside the building or at the West San Carlos Street end of the site, screened and away from Gifford Avenue, consistent with DDG Section 3.5.2 and General Plan Policy CD-1.18.

4. Require the applicant to conduct genuine, early consultation with the neighborhood on the building’s design, consistent with General Plan Policies IP-14.6, VN-2.3, and CE1.7, before the permit advances.

5. Find the project, as currently proposed, inconsistent with General Plan Policies CD-6.3, CD-4.5, CD-4.9, and CD-6.11 until it is revised to provide the required transitions in height, bulk, and scale.

6. Deny the statutory CEQA exemption under Assembly Bill 130 because the project site contains active lead-impacted soil exceeding residential screening levels and completely lacks an official agency closure letter or suitability sign-off as required under Government Code Section 21080.66.

We would welcome the opportunity to meet with staff and the applicant to resolve these issues before the hearing. This letter has been shared with the residents and property owners of the 300 block of Gifford Avenue.

In short: the affordable units are welcome, but they are far insufficient to warrant the City setting aside long debated neighborhood-transition standards, design guidelines, or General Plan policies that protect our community. Laws, statutes, and guidelines should be enforced uniformly, lest we create dangerous precedent in our neighborhoods that renders all of the above either unenforceable or unrecognizable.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Sutherland, Laura Winter, Bert Weaver and Sarah Springer On behalf of the Stakeholders + Neighborhoods Initiative (S+NI) Cc: Mayor and Council
City Manager Jennifer Maguire
PBCE Director Chris Burton
PBCE Division Manager, John Tu
Office of the City Attorney, Daniel Zazuetta,
Matt Bernardis, Urban Catalyst
Mike Walsh, Urban Catalyst
Residents and property owners of the 300 block of Gifford Avenue Attachment H: Public Comments Page 34
July 13, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Christopher Burton, Director
Jerad Ferguson, Deputy Director / Hearing Officer
Jacqueline Guerrero, Project Manager
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, California 95113
Re: Comment and Objection — Site Development Permit for “The Gifford” / Delmas Senior Living
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 (Draft Permit; Director’s Hearing set for July 15, 2026) Location: Southwest corner of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue (462–470 West San Carlos Street / 321–329 Gifford Avenue; APN 264-20-133) Applicant: Urban Catalyst (Matt Bernardis) | Owner: Delmas Senior PropCo LLC Dear Director Burton, Hearing Officer Ferguson, and Ms. Guerrero:

I. Introduction and Statement of Interest
Stakeholders + Neighborhoods Initiative (“S+NI”) has concerns regarding the above-referenced Site Development Permit and related environmental clearance for the eight-story, 276-unit residential project known in the record both as “The Gifford” and as the “Delmas Senior Living” site (the “Project”). We respectfully request that this letter, together with all documents it references, be entered into and made part of the administrative record for the Director’s Hearing and for any subsequent appeal to the City Council under San José Municipal Code (“SJMC”) Chapter 20.100.

At the outset, we wish to be clear about what this letter is and is not. S+NI supports the production of infill housing, including affordable housing, in the Diridon Station Area and in downtown San José generally. This location—a previously developed, transit-proximate infill parcel—is an appropriate place for a substantial residential building, and nothing in this letter should be read as opposition to housing, to density, or to the use of the State Density Bonus Law to facilitate it. Our concerns are narrower and strictly legal: whether the City has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State Density Bonus Law; whether the findings the City must make are supported by substantial evidence in the record; and whether the administrative record, as presently constituted, adequately supports the requested approvals. On several points we conclude the City’s approach is legally sound, and we say so. On the principal points addressed below, however, the record before the Director does not yet support the determinations the Draft Permit would make, and approval on the current record would be vulnerable to reversal.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 35
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 2 of 14
We raise these issues now, before the Director’s Hearing, so that they may be cured administratively and so that the City may avoid an approval that does not withstand scrutiny. To the extent they are not resolved, this letter is intended to exhaust administrative remedies and to preserve each issue for a City Council appeal and, if necessary, for judicial review. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21177; Gov. Code, § 65009.)
II. Summary of Principal Concerns
The principal deficiencies in the current record are as follows:

1. The CEQA clearance is legally deficient. The Draft Permit designates the Project “Statutorily Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Assembly Bill 130).” The Project site is an active soil-cleanup site enrolled in the Santa Clara County Site Cleanup Program with known lead contamination and no residential-suitability determination. Under the plain terms of AB 130, a site listed pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 is ineligible unless it has been cleared for residential use. The City’s own Environmental Review Division reached exactly this conclusion on December 23, 2025. The exemption determination is also internally contradictory, because the Draft Permit simultaneously imposes a full suite of CEQA mitigation measures—which a statutory exemption neither requires nor permits.

2. In the alternative, reliance on the 2020 Addendum is unsupported. The only project-specific CEQA document in the record is a December 2020 Addendum that analyzed a materially different project—a six-story senior-living facility—not the eight-story, 276-unit market-rate building now proposed. Intervening new information (the site’s enrollment as a cleanup case) further undermines that document’s premises.

3. The State Density Bonus findings are internally inconsistent and, in material respects, unsupported. The findings misidentify the base density, conflate concessions with waivers, grant waivers the applicant did not request, and rest the waiver analysis on the applicant’s assertion that compliance “would not pencil”—an economic rationale that is not the “physically preclude” standard the statute requires.

4. Several Site Development Permit and Public Works findings and conditions are internally inconsistent or rest on unresolved items, and the record contains a number of integrity problems (conflicting addresses and parcel numbers, a citation to a non-existent memorandum, and conflicting descriptions of the very use being approved).

We address each below, with citation to the record, and we identify the specific findings the City would need to make—and the evidence it would need—to support the approval.

III. Applicable Legal Standards
The determinations at issue are governed by well-settled standards.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 36
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 3 of 14
Findings and substantial evidence. A discretionary land-use permit must be supported by findings, and those findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Findings must “bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision.” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) Conclusory findings that recite a legal standard without connecting it to evidence are inadequate. “Substantial evidence” is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.)
CEQA exemptions. A statutory exemption applies only if the project meets every element the Legislature prescribed; the agency bears the obligation to determine eligibility on substantial evidence before relying on the exemption. Because AB 130 is a statutory exemption codified in the Public Resources Code, it is not subject to the categorical-exemption exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2—but by the same token it is available only where each statutory site and project criterion is satisfied.

Subsequent CEQA review. Where an EIR has been certified, an agency may proceed by addendum only if none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR is present—i.e., substantial project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial importance. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, 15164.) The agency’s decision that the earlier document remains adequate is reviewed for substantial evidence, but the earlier document must “retain some informational value” and remain relevant to the project actually approved. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 951–959.)
State Density Bonus Law. Government Code section 65915 confers four distinct categories of benefit—a density increase, a limited number of incentives or concessions, an unlimited number of waivers of development standards that would “physically preclude” the project, and parking reductions. A “waiver” under subdivision (e)(1) is available only where the standard “would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” at the density permitted and with the concessions granted; the local agency may decline only on a written finding, supported by substantial evidence, that the standard would not physically preclude the project or that a statutory exception applies. The published decisions construing these provisions—Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, and Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755—are generally protective of qualifying density-bonus projects, and we discuss their significance, and their limits, in Part V.B below.

IV. Factual and Procedural Background
The following chronology is drawn entirely from the documents in the City’s file and the County’s regulatory record.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 37
Attachment H: Public Comments
Attachment H: Public Comments

Page 38 ends

Date Event / Document in the Record
Dec. 18, 2018 City certifies the Downtown Strategy 2040 Final EIR (SCH #2003042127; Res. No. 78942).

Dec. 2020 City adopts an Initial Study/Addendum to the Downtown Strategy 2040 FEIR for the "Delmas Senior Living Project" (Files GP19-012, C19-042, CP20-019, T20-020): a six-story senior-living facility (up to 49 memory-care and 116 assisted-living units, 4 affordable), -65-69 ft, FAR 4. 72, 32 surface parking spaces, via General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and CUP. The Addendum states the site "is not on the Cortese List." Aug. 12, 2021 AEI Consultants' Soils Management Plan ("SMP") for lead-impacted soil is conditionally approved by Santa Clara County Environmental Health ("County EH"); the site is enrolled in the Site Cleanup Program (Case #2021-10s; GeoTracker Tl0000017009).

Oct. 29, 2025 Current application submitted.

Dec. 23, 2025 City Environmental Review Division (B. Telahun) memorandum concludes the Project does not qualify for AB 130 because the site is "listed on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962. 5 " and is "an active clean-up program site," and would become eligible only upon a residential-suitability closure letter.

Jan. 5, 2026 County EH (H. Hanna, PG) grants a second extension of the SMP through Dec. 31, 2026, with a Completion Report due no later than Apr. 30, 2027; describes the site's prior structures and lead-removal work still to be performed.

Feb. 27,2026 Planning Round-2 comment letter (J. Guerrero): stepback plane "not consistent"; discusses six waivers; instructs applicant to eliminate the balcony waiver ("No need to ask for waiver"); CEQA scope of work under review; Public Works "pending." Mar. 5, 2026 Public Works 2nd Memo (H. Lee): no detailed CEQA transportation analysis needed because the Project is "covered under the San Jose Downtown Strategy 2040 EIR," but a Local Transportation Analysis ("LTA") is required; sanitary capacity under review.

June 29, 2026 Public Works Final Memo (J. Provenzano): now states the Project "qualifies for a statutory Exemption under Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130)" and is entitled to "ministerial exemption from a CEQA transportation analysis"; the LTA requirement is dropped.

July 6, 2026 Community meeting: developer states the Project "would not pencil" if built to comply at the maximum pennitted height; staff state their "hands are tied" and that they have no input; noted that the Project uses density-bonus waivers without taking bonus units.

July 15, 2026 Director's Hearing / Draft Pennit approval date; environmental status listed as "Statutorily Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130)." Two features of this chronology frame everything that follows. First, the operative CEQA basis for the Project changed three times-from "ineligible for AB 130" (Environmental, December 2025), to "covered by the Downtown Strategy 2040 EIR with a required LTA" (Public Works, March 2026), to "statutorily exempt under AB 130, no transportation analysis" (Public Works and the Draft Pennit, June-July 2026)without any new closure letter, transportation study, or environmental analysis appearing in the record to support the final position. Second, the only project-specific CEQA document in the file analyzes a different building (six-story senior living) than the one the City proposes to approve (eight-story, 276-unit apartments).

Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page4 of14
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 5 of 14
V. Argument
A. The Project’s CEQA Clearance Under AB 130 Is Not Supported by the Record.

1. The site is ineligible for the AB 130 statutory exemption because it is an active cleanup site listed under Government Code section 65962.5 with no residential-suitability determination.

AB 130 added Public Resources Code section 21080.66, which creates a statutory CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing. Among its mandatory site-eligibility criteria—incorporated from the SB 35/SB 423 framework (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(6))—is the requirement that the site not be a hazardous-waste site “listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code,” or designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, “unless” the State Department of Public Health, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or the local agency has determined that the site is suitable for residential use (for example, through a closure letter). This is a threshold site criterion; a project that fails it is simply not eligible for the exemption.

The record establishes, without contradiction, that the site fails this criterion:
“Based on the City’s analysis, the proposed project does not qualify for AB130 because it is located on an active clean up program site. The project may become eligible for AB 130 if the applicant provides a closure letter … determining that the site is suitable for residential use.” (City Environmental Review Division memorandum, Dec. 23, 2025.) That conclusion is corroborated at every turn. The State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker record lists “Delmas Senior Living,” 470 West San Carlos Street, as an open case with the status “Under Investigation.” Santa Clara County Environmental Health’s letter of January 5, 2026 confirms the site is an open Site Cleanup Program case (Case #2021-10s) with lead-impacted soil requiring excavation and confirmation sampling; the County extended the Soils Management Plan only through December 31, 2026, and the Completion Report documenting the cleanup is not due until April 30, 2027. No closure letter or residential-suitability determination appears anywhere in the record.

The Draft Permit itself confirms the disqualifying condition. Standard Environmental Permit Condition Haz-1.1 provides:
“Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the applicant must enter into the Santa Clara County Department of Environment Health … Site Cleanup Program … to obtain regulatory oversight … Any further investigation and remedial actions must be performed under regulatory oversight to mitigate the contamination and make the site suitable for the proposed residential development.” (Draft Permit, Cond. 42.k.) A condition requiring future remediation “to make the site suitable for the proposed residential development” is an admission that, as of approval, the site is not yet suitable and has not been cleared for residential use. That is the precise circumstance in which AB 130 is unavailable. The exemption cannot be conditioned into existence: its site criteria must be satisfied at the time the exemption is invoked, not deferred to a future cleanup that will not even be documented as complete until 2027. We respectfully submit that the environmental status stated on the face of the Draft Permit—“Statutorily Attachment H: Public Comments Page 39
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 6 of 14
Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66”—is not supported by, and is affirmatively contradicted by, the City’s own record.

2. The exemption determination is internally contradictory, because the Draft Permit imposes CEQA mitigation that a statutory exemption neither requires nor allows.

A statutory exemption means the project is not subject to CEQA at all; the agency does not analyze impacts and does not impose mitigation. Yet the Draft Permit imposes an extensive set of “Standard Environmental Permit Conditions” that are, in substance and often verbatim, CEQA mitigation measures—dust control and Tier 4 equipment (SPC AIR-1 through AIR-5), a construction health-risk assessment, biological and cultural-resources protocols (SPC BIO-3, CUL-1, CUL-2), tribalmonitoring measures (SPC TCR-2), seismic and paleontological measures (SPC GEO-1, GEO-2), construction water-quality measures (SPC HYD-1), noise and vibration measures (SPC NOI-1, NOI2, NOI-6, VIB-1), and the hazardous-materials measure (Haz-1.1). These measures track the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program measures adopted for prior downtown addenda tiering off the Downtown Strategy 2040 EIR (see, e.g., the MMRP measures MM AQ-1 and MM HAZ-1.1 through 1.4 in the record).

The presence of a mitigation-monitoring regime is fundamentally incompatible with a statutory exemption. Either the Project was reviewed under CEQA—in which case it is not statutorily exempt, and the City must identify and defend the operative CEQA document—or it is statutorily exempt, in which case these mitigation measures have no CEQA foundation. The Draft Permit cannot have it both ways. The internal inconsistency is not a drafting nicety; it demonstrates that the City in fact undertook the environmental analysis characteristic of a discretionary CEQA project while simultaneously labeling the Project exempt from CEQA.

3. The record reflects an unexplained reversal of the CEQA basis.

As the chronology shows, the City’s position on the Project’s CEQA basis moved from “does not qualify for AB 130” (Environmental, Dec. 23, 2025), to reliance on the Downtown Strategy 2040 EIR with a required Local Transportation Analysis (Public Works, Mar. 5, 2026), to a bare assertion of AB 130 statutory exemption with no transportation analysis (Public Works, June 29, 2026; Draft Permit).

The June Public Works memorandum states the Project “qualifies for a statutory Exemption under Assembly Bill 130” and is entitled to a “ministerial exemption from a CEQA transportation analysis,” and the previously required LTA disappears. Nothing in the record explains this reversal, and no new closure letter, suitability determination, or transportation study appears to justify it. An agency may of course change its analysis, but its final determination must rest on substantial evidence; here the final CEQA basis contradicts the only reasoned environmental analysis in the file and is unsupported by any intervening evidence.

We note, additionally, that AB 130 is a CEQA exemption—not a general grant of ministerial approval.

The Public Works statement that the Project “may be held to objective standards” and is entitled to a “ministerial exemption” appears to conflate the AB 130 CEQA exemption with the distinct objectivestandards and ministerial-approval regimes of the Housing Accountability Act and SB 330. That Attachment H: Public Comments Page 40
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 7 of 14
conflation matters, because the Project is being processed as a discretionary Site Development Permit requiring the discretionary findings discussed in Part V.C.

B. In the Alternative, Reliance on the December 2020 Addendum Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

If the City intends to rely not on AB 130 but on the December 2020 Initial Study/Addendum to the Downtown Strategy 2040 FEIR (the only project-specific CEQA document in the file), that reliance presents its own problems under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164.

1. The Addendum analyzed a materially different project. The December 2020 Addendum evaluated a six-story senior-living facility—up to 49 memory-care units, 116 assisted-living units, and four affordable units—approximately 65 to 69 feet tall, with a floor-area ratio of 4.72 and 32 surface parking spaces, entitled through a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, and a Conditional Use Permit. The Project now before the City is an eight-story, 276-unit general market-rate apartment building, approximately 85 to 89 feet tall, with a FAR of roughly 5.95 and 217 parking spaces (208 in a mechanical stacker), entitled through a Site Development Permit and the Density Bonus Law. These are not minor changes. The use itself is different (specialized senior/assisted-living care versus general multifamily), with materially different trip generation, parking demand, resident population, and service needs; the building is two stories and roughly 20 feet taller; the FAR and unit count are substantially greater. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(1), such substantial changes require evaluation of whether major revisions to the prior environmental document are needed—an evaluation the record does not contain for the project actually proposed.

2. New information of substantial importance has emerged. The 2020 Addendum expressly found that “the project site is not on the Cortese List.” That premise is no longer accurate. By 2021 the site had been enrolled in the County Site Cleanup Program as an active case with documented leadimpacted soil, and the City’s own 2025 memorandum treats the site as “listed … pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5” and “an active clean-up program site.” Information that a site has become a listed, actively remediated cleanup case—unknown when the prior document was prepared—is precisely the kind of “new information of substantial importance” that section 15162(a)(3) requires the agency to evaluate.

3. No transportation analysis exists for the project actually proposed. The 2020 Addendum’s transportation and VMT analysis was premised on senior/assisted-living use, which generates markedly fewer and different vehicle trips than 276 general apartments. Public Works recognized in March 2026 that a Local Transportation Analysis was required; that requirement was then dropped under the AB 130 theory. The result is that no transportation analysis of the 276-unit apartment use appears in the record under any theory.

4. The two theories are mutually exclusive. A project cannot simultaneously be statutorily exempt from CEQA under AB 130 (no CEQA review, no document) and approved on the basis of an EIR addendum (a CEQA document prepared for a discretionary project). The record should identify a single, coherent CEQA determination and support it with substantial evidence. Under Friends of Attachment H: Public Comments Page 41
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 8 of 14
College of San Mateo Gardens, even the deferential standard governing an agency’s choice to proceed by addendum requires that the earlier document retain informational value for—and remain relevant to—the project actually approved. On this record, neither theory is adequately supported.

C. The State Density Bonus Findings Are Internally Inconsistent and, in Material Respects, Unsupported.

S+NI does not dispute that the Project may qualify for the Density Bonus Law by restricting five percent of its units to very-low-income households, nor that a qualifying project is entitled to concessions and to waivers of standards that would physically preclude it. Our concern is that the density-bonus findings, as written, misstate the statutory framework, are internally inconsistent, grant relief the applicant did not request, and rest on a legal standard the statute does not authorize.

1. The findings misidentify the base density. Density-Bonus Finding 3.b states that the Downtown designation “allows residential density at 800 dwelling units per acre, equivalent to 714 base units,” and that the Project “is eligible for a 20% density bonus, or 143 additional units.” This conflates the theoretical maximum allowable density with the base project. Under section 65915, the affordability percentage and the resulting bonus are measured against the units in the proposed housing development. The Project proposes 276 units and restricts 14 to very-low-income households; 14 of 276 is 5.07 percent, which establishes eligibility—but a 20 percent bonus on a 276-unit base is 55 units, not 143. The figure “143 additional units” (20 percent of 714) is not the Project’s density bonus; it reflects a misunderstanding of how the base is determined. We acknowledge that this error does not, by itself, defeat eligibility on the correct reading; but a finding that misstates the statutory calculation is not the reasoned, substantial-evidence finding the law requires, and it signals that the density-bonus analysis was not carefully performed.

2. The findings conflate concessions with waivers and are internally inconsistent as to number.

The Draft Permit states that the applicant “qualifies for one incentives/concessions” and “did not request an incentive,” then states that “[t]he project qualifies for unlimited waivers” and “has requested fourteen waivers,” and then lists five (stepback plane, skyline-level massing, balconies, ground-floor elevation, podium-level massing). The Facts and Findings section, in turn, describes “five waivers.” and the five items actually listed cannot all be correct. Because concessions (limited in number, evaluated for cost reduction under subdivision (d)) and waivers (unlimited, evaluated for physical preclusion under subdivision (e)) are governed by different standards, the record must identify with precision how many of each is requested and the statutory basis for each. It does not.

3. The Draft Permit grants waivers the applicant did not request, and recharacterizes the requests the applicant actually made. The applicant’s own plan sheet (AP0.00, “Density Bonus Waivers”) tells a different story than the findings. On that sheet the applicant:
• requests relief from the stepback plane not under the Density Bonus Law, but under SB 330 / the Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A)), on the theory that the DSAP stepback standard (Figure 2-4-7) was adopted May 25, 2021—after the January 1, 2018 baseline—and cannot be applied to reduce housing intensity; Attachment H: Public Comments Page 42
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 9 of 14
• requests the skyline-level massing and ground-floor elevation deviations as design-guideline exceptions under Downtown Design Guidelines section 1.4 (its “Track 1 / Track 2” findings), not as Density Bonus Law waivers; and
• marks the loading-zone height, balconies, and podium-level massing items “N/A”—that is, not requested at all.

Notwithstanding, the Draft Permit grants Density Bonus Law section 65915(e) waivers for balconies and podium-level massing—items the applicant expressly did not request—and recharacterizes the SB 330 stepback request and the Design-Guideline exception requests as Density Bonus waivers. Granting a statutory waiver that was never requested, and on a legal basis different from the one the applicant invoked, is not supported by the record. At a minimum, the City must reconcile which mechanism applies to each deviation and make findings appropriate to that mechanism.

4. The waiver findings apply the wrong legal standard and lack substantial evidence of physical preclusion. A section 65915(e) waiver is available only where the development standard “would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of” the project at the permitted density with the granted concessions. The Draft Permit’s waiver analyses rest entirely on conclusory assertions that compliance would cause the “loss of” a stated number of units (eight, six, four, one, one). The contemporaneous record shows that the driving rationale was not physical preclusion but economics.

According to the July 6, 2026 community-meeting record, the developer stated that the Project “would not pencil” if it were built to comply at the maximum permitted height, and “keeps saying doesn’t pencil instead of physically preclude development,” while “City staff did not do any analysis of this issue, [and] just accepted [the] developer statement that they might lose 1-8 units.” Economic infeasibility is not the section 65915(e) standard. Indeed, the City’s own Downtown Design Guidelines section 1.4 exception process—on which the applicant’s plan sheet relies for two of these deviations—expressly requires that the qualifying constraint be one “not caused by financial or economic constraints considerations.” A record built on “doesn’t pencil,” unaccompanied by any independent City analysis, does not establish physical preclusion under either the Density Bonus Law or the Design Guidelines. The point is underscored by an undisputed fact the findings do not confront:
the Project is proposed at 276 units on a site the City states allows a far higher density (Finding 3.a), and at approximately 85–89 feet on a site with a 110-foot limit. On this record, the City has not shown that any standard would “physically preclude” the development at the density permitted; it has shown only that compliance might reduce the applicant’s preferred unit yield.

5. The governing case law, fairly applied, does not close this gap. We recognize—and want the record to reflect our recognition—that the published Density Bonus Law decisions are protective of qualifying projects. Wollmer, Schreiber, and Bankers Hill 150 establish that a qualifying density-bonus applicant is entitled to waivers of standards that would physically preclude the project as designed; that the City generally may not compel a redesign (for example, to remove an amenity such as a courtyard) as a condition of compliance; that requested incentives are presumed to yield cost reductions; and that the City bears the burden to justify denial. We do not contend, and the City need not find, that the Attachment H: Public Comments Page 43
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 10 of 14
applicant must strip the building of features or redesign it. But those decisions presuppose two things absent here: first, a project that properly invokes the Density Bonus Law waiver mechanism for the specific standards at issue (not SB 330 or a Design-Guideline exception); and second, a record establishing—or at least a good-faith City determination on substantial evidence—that the standard would “physically preclude” the project as designed. Those cases confirm the strength of a properly documented density-bonus request; they do not excuse the City from identifying the correct mechanism and making a finding supported by substantial evidence, rather than adopting the applicant’s economic conclusion without analysis. The cure is not to demand a smaller or redesigned building; it is to build a record that supports the waivers the City actually grants.

6. Context. Finally, for the record: the same 14 very-low-income units that qualify the Project for the density bonus also satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance obligation (Draft Permit, Cond. 37, providing 14 on-site units plus a $2,550,991.80 in-lieu fee). Counting inclusionary units toward density-bonus eligibility is permissible under section 65915, and we do not assert otherwise. We note it only because the Project takes no bonus units at all (Finding 3.b), which means the requested waivers are not needed to accommodate any additional density—a fact that bears directly on whether any standard truly “physically precludes” the development “at the density permitted.” D. Several Site Development Permit Findings Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Approval of a Site Development Permit requires the findings specified in SJMC section 20.100.630, including that the Project, “as approved,” conforms to the Zoning Code and applicable design standards. Several of these findings are contradicted by the Draft Permit’s own text and conditions.

1. The design-conformance findings are contradicted by unresolved revisions. Finding 3.a.v recites conformance with the Downtown Design Guidelines, yet the same finding flags noncompliance and directs the applicant to change the design—e.g., that the blue stucco “emphasizes a strong vertical aspect … rather than the overall building form … Please revise it to better align with the standard” (Guidelines § 4.4.1), and that the pedestrian-level materials must be corrected (Guidelines § 4.4.3). Condition 7 then requires the applicant, after approval, to file a permit adjustment “to add an additional balcony column on Gifford Avenue and change the balcony color/face to a woodlike grain.” A finding that the Project “as approved” conforms to the design standards cannot rest on plans the City simultaneously directs the applicant to revise; the conformance the finding recites has not yet been achieved.

2. The loading standard is not met, and the “condition” is unresolved. The Project does not satisfy the 15-foot vertical clearance required for off-street loading (SJMC § 20.90.420); the Draft Permit acknowledges the vehicle entrance is 10 feet and provides only 12 feet of clearance. The Permit “conditions” a workaround limiting the garage to Class 4–6 trucks and contemplates “an on-street loading space along West San Carlos Street via a separate Public Works permit process.” That off-site loading space is not secured, and it is in tension with Public Works’ own direction to “[r]evise trash management plan to avoid on-street staging for trash pick-up” (PW 2nd Memo, item 5.a). The record does not establish compliance with the loading standard.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 44
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 11 of 14

3. Unresolved parking and description discrepancies. Planning’s February 27, 2026 letter found that “the vehicle width for all stacked spaces is too narrow” for the 90-degree configuration, which requires a minimum 8-foot-6-inch width; the record does not show this was resolved. The Draft Permit also describes “underground parking” in the project description while the findings and plans show an at-grade, ground-floor parking garage—an unreconciled inconsistency in the description of what is being approved.

E. The Public Works Conditions Contain Material Internal Inconsistencies and Unresolved Items.

1. Contradictory transportation basis. As discussed in Part V.A.3, the Public Works Final Memo’s AB 130 transportation basis contradicts the same division’s March 2026 basis (Downtown Strategy 2040 EIR plus a required LTA) and the Environmental Division’s determination, and it eliminates the previously required Local Transportation Analysis without explanation.

2. Internally inconsistent street-frontage conditions. The Final Memo directs the applicant to “construct curb, gutter, and 10’ attached sidewalk with tree wells at back of curb along Gifford Avenue” (Cond. 12.b), while the very next street-tree condition directs that “[s]treet trees shall be installed in park strip on Gifford Avenue” and specifies trees “planted 20’ on center in parkstrip” (Cond. 16 / 6.a). An attached sidewalk at the back of curb has no parkstrip; the two conditions cannot both be performed as written. The March 2026 memo had specified a detached sidewalk with a 4-foot parkstrip on Gifford—the configuration the street-tree condition assumes—suggesting the change to an attached sidewalk was made without conforming the related conditions.

3. Unresolved sanitary capacity. The March 2026 memo stated that Sanitary was “currently reviewing the project to determine if the current capacity is adequate,” and that “upsizing of the surrounding sanitary mains” might be required. The record does not document the resolution of that review; the Final Memo simply omits it. Sewer capacity is a legitimate subject of the City’s findings and should be resolved on the record before approval.

F. Record-Integrity and Procedural Deficiencies.

Individually minor, these problems collectively undermine confidence that the environmental and entitlement review was performed with the care the law requires, and several bear directly on notice and on the accuracy of the project description.

1. Conflicting addresses and parcel numbers. The record variously identifies the site as 470, 462– 470, and 466 West San Carlos Street, and as 321–329, 325, and 313 Gifford Avenue, with ZIP codes given as both 95110 and 95126; the entitlement lists APN 264-20-133 while the cleanup file and 2020 Addendum use APNs 264-20-082 through -088. A clear, consistent legal description is basic to public notice, to the CEQA baseline, and to the enforceability of conditions that “run with the land.”

2. A template/address error in the environmental memorandum. The AB 130 environmental memorandum describes “The Gifford project … at 1803 Bradford Way,” an address unrelated to this site—an apparent template artifact that further calls into question the care of the environmental review.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 45
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 12 of 14

3. Inconsistent description of the approved use and hours. The permit header describes extended construction hours on “Saturdays”; the project description says “Monday through Saturday”; and Finding 3.a.vi, Condition 11, and SPC NOI-1 describe normal hours “Monday through Friday” with Saturday hours limited to 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. More fundamentally, the entitled use (general 276-unit apartments) differs from the “senior living facility and staff housing” described in the County cleanup file and the 2020 Addendum. The description of the very project being approved should be internally consistent.

4. The community-outreach findings and the disclaimer of discretion. Finding 3.a.iii recites a community meeting held May 4, 2026. A further community meeting occurred on July 6, 2026, at which, staff indicated to the neighbors that they were limited to request any changes to the project.

That advice is difficult to reconcile with the discretionary Site Development Permit findings the City must independently make and support under SJMC section 20.100.630. A discretionary permit is not a ministerial rubber stamp, and the findings must reflect the City’s own reasoned judgment on substantial evidence.

G. If AB 130 Is Pursued, Mandatory Conditions Appear to Be Missing.

Should the City persist in relying on AB 130 (notwithstanding Part V.A), the exemption carries mandatory obligations that the Draft Permit does not reflect. First, AB 130 imposes labor standards: a building more than 85 feet above grade must pay prevailing wages and use a skilled-and-trained workforce (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66, subd. (d); Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(8)). The plans state a maximum building height of 85 feet to average roof height, and the findings state 89 feet 3 inches; at or above that threshold, these labor conditions are mandatory, yet the Draft Permit imposes none. Second, AB 130 requires that tribal consultation be completed on the statutory timeline and that any resulting measures be imposed as conditions (§ 21080.66, subd. (b)); the December 2025 memorandum indicates consultation had not yet occurred, and the record should document its completion. Third, AB 130 conditions the exemption on a Phase I environmental site assessment and appropriate follow-up (§ 21080.66, subd. (c))—which, on this contaminated site, only reinforces the eligibility problem addressed in Part V.A. In short, if the Project is treated as AB 130-exempt, the Permit is missing mandatory conditions; and if those conditions are added, they confirm that the site’s open cleanup status defeats eligibility in the first place.

VI. Where the City’s Analysis Appears Sound
In fairness, and to assist the Director in separating the genuinely contested issues from the settled ones, we note the following points on which the City’s approach appears legally sound and which we do not challenge:
• Land-use appropriateness and General Plan/DSAP dimensional consistency. The site is an appropriate location for substantial infill housing, and the Project’s height (approximately 85– 89 feet against a 110-foot DSAP limit) and floor-area ratio (approximately 5.95 against a maximum of 30) are within the applicable DSAP standards.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 46
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 13 of 14
• Density Bonus eligibility, correctly framed. On the correct base (the 276-unit proposed project), the restriction of 14 units to very-low-income households satisfies the five-percent verylow-income threshold, and the Project is in principle entitled to the density bonus and to the associated concession and waiver mechanisms—provided the findings are made correctly and supported by evidence.
• Availability of a deviation mechanism. The City’s Downtown Design Guidelines contain an established exception process (§ 1.4), and the Density Bonus Law provides waivers; one or another of these mechanisms is available for legitimate design deviations. Our objection is to the manner in which they were applied, not to their existence. • The environmental measures themselves. The Standard Environmental Permit Conditions (air quality, biology, cultural and tribal resources, geology, hydrology, noise, vibration, and hazardous materials) are appropriate, substantively protective measures. Our objection is that their presence is inconsistent with a claimed statutory exemption—not that the measures are themselves objectionable. They belong in a properly supported CEQA determination. • Inclusionary compliance and impact fees. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance treatment (Cond. 37) and the Diridon Station Area and citywide impact-fee conditions appear consistent with applicable ordinances.

VII. Requested Action
S+NI respectfully requests that the Director not approve the Draft Permit on the current record, and instead continue the matter to allow the following to be addressed:

1. Adopt a single, coherent, and supported CEQA determination. Either (a) if AB 130 is pursued, place in the record a residential-suitability determination or closure letter from the appropriate agency establishing that the site satisfies Public Resources Code section 21080.66’s site-eligibility criteria, and add the mandatory AB 130 conditions (labor, tribal, Phase I); or (b) prepare a subsequent or supplemental CEQA document, or a new addendum supported by substantial evidence, that analyzes the eight-story, 276-unit apartment project actually proposed and addresses the site’s current cleanup status and the absence of any transportation analysis for the general-apartment use. The two theories should not both appear on the face of the approval, and mitigation measures should not be imposed under a statutory-exemption label.

2. Correct and support the Density Bonus findings. Identify the correct base density and bonus calculation; state precisely how many concessions and how many waivers are requested, and the statutory basis for each; reconcile the waivers granted with the deviations the applicant actually requested (including the SB 330 and Design-Guideline-exception theories on the applicant’s own plan sheet); and, for each waiver granted, make a finding, supported by substantial evidence, that the specific development standard would physically preclude the development at the permitted density— rather than adopting the applicant’s “would not pencil” economic conclusion without independent analysis.

Attachment H: Public Comments Page 47
Comment re File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 Page 14 of 14

3. Reconcile the entitlement and Public Works conditions. Resolve the loading-clearance and onstreet-loading issues; reconcile the Gifford Avenue attached-sidewalk and parkstrip street-tree conditions; document the resolution of the sanitary-capacity review; and confirm the stacker stall dimensions.

4. Correct the record. Adopt a single, consistent legal description (address, ZIP, and APN); correct the environmental memorandum’s address error and Finding 3.a.vi’s citation to a non-existent Public Works memorandum; and reconcile the construction-hours and use descriptions.

VIII. Conclusion and Reservation of Rights
S+NI supports housing at this site. Precisely because the Project is worth doing correctly, it should be approved on a record that will withstand review. As presently constituted, the record does not support the environmental clearance stated on the face of the Draft Permit, and several of the required findings are internally inconsistent or unsupported by substantial evidence. We urge the City to address these issues administratively before approval.

This letter is submitted to ensure that each issue raised herein is part of the administrative record and to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to each such issue for purposes of any appeal to the City Council and any subsequent proceeding. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21177; Gov. Code, § 65009.) The S+NI reserves all rights, including the right to supplement these comments, to appeal any approval to the City Council, and to seek judicial review. We further request timely notice of any action on the Project, and, if a Notice of Exemption or Notice of Determination is filed, a copy of that filing.

We appreciate the Department’s consideration and are available to discuss these issues before the hearing.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Sutherland
Laura Winter
Bert Weaver
Sarah Springer
On behalf of the Stakeholders + Neighborhoods Initiative (S+NI) Cc:

City Manager Jennifer Maguire
Mayor and Council
Residents and property owners of the 300 block of Gifford Avenue Attachment H: Public Comments Page 48
Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Page 49 Page 49 Page 49 Page 49 7/21/26, 4:31 PM Attachment H: Public Comments Mail - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook Page 49 � Outlook
Fwd: Gifford
From kathy sutherland
Date Tue 7/21/2026 12:17 PM
To Do, Sylvia <[email protected]>; Guerrero, Jacqueline <[email protected]> Cc Bert Weaver <[email protected]>; Sarah Springer <[email protected]>; Laura Winter <[email protected]> [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn morel Dear Sylvia and Jacqueline,
I've been asked to forward this to you for the PDH tomorrow.

Kathy
Kathv Sutherland
Begin forwarded message:
��
From: Bill Rankin
Date: July 21, 20
To: kathybcsj
Subject: Gifford
The Stakeholders + Neighborhoods Initiative (S+NI), which grew out of the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative of the 1990s, continues to play an important role in helping residents stay informed about development in and around the greater Diridon Station Area. Community voices still matter, and this is an issue that deserves attention.

Urban Catalyst is proposing a development at the corner of Gifford and San Carlos that seeks waivers from the City's adopted design guidelines and standards by using the State Density Bonus law. I support adding housing on this site, and the existing zoning already allows a building up to 110 feet tall. My concern is not about the number of homes proposed, but about how the Density Bonus is being applied.

The proposal is for an 89-foot building with 276 units, including 14 affordable units (5%). According to the applicant, the Density Bonus is needed to obtain waivers from the design standards adopted by the City in 2021 because meeting those standards would make the project financially infeasible. Yet the project is not taking https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgMAMAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AfK5baUYG4EKcKKCIN2EhbQAGUpoafgAA 1/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. advantage of the site's full development potential. That raises important questions about whether the Density Bonus is being used in the way it was intended.

I am also concerned that the building design appears to rely on a template already being used elsewhere rather than responding to the character of this particular site.

Josefa Street and Gifford Street are very different environments, and Gifford includes a number of well-maintained historic homes. Good infill development should respect the context of each neighborhood instead of assuming the same design works everywhere.

Another concern is that approval of this project has become linked to the sale of a City-owned site on North First Street, an issue that initially appeared on the June 16 Consent Calendar before being pulled for public comment. That connection deserves a full and transparent public discussion.

The project has already been postponed from the July 8 and July 15 Planning Director hearings and is now scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, at 9:00 a.m.

I hope the Planning Director will delay approval of the draft permit until these outstanding concerns have been fully addressed. If you care about thoughtful growth, neighborhood character, and following the development standards that were established through a public process, I encourage you to pay attention to this hearing and lend your support.

Bill Rankin
7/21/26, 4:31 PM Mail - Guerrero, Jacqueline - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AfK5baUYG4EKcKKClN2EhbQAGUpoafgAA 2/2 Attachment H: Public Comments Page 50
Proposed Site Development Permit at 0 South 2nd Street (APN: 46722160); Community Meeting; File Nos.: H26-013 & ER26-063
Jul 30, 2026
My name is Maria Bones, and I am representing the Hammer Theatre Center and the many patrons who attend our performances and community events.

Our concern is the impact this development may have on access to the theatre, particularly for older adults and patrons with mobility challenges.

The existing surface lot next to the theatre provides nearby, level parking for people who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes, or who have difficulty walking longer distances. The closest alternative is the multistory parking garage at 2nd and San Carlos, but its elevator is frequently out of service.

When that happens, accessible parking located on an upper floor is not truly accessible to someone who cannot use the stairs.

Removing the surface lot next door to the theatre without a practical replacement could make it significantly harder for some patrons to attend performances and community events. This is not simply a matter of convenience. It affects whether people of all ages and abilities can continue to participate in the cultural life of downtown San José.

We ask the applicant and the City to prepare a documented accessibility and transportation plan.

That plan should identify where replacement accessible and van-accessible parking will be located, whether it will be available during theatre events, what it will cost, and how patrons will travel safely from those spaces to the Hammer.

The plan should also address safe passenger loading, paratransit access, and conditions during construction, including any impacts on sidewalks, curb ramps, loading areas, and accessible routes.

We also ask the City to consider a dedicated accessible passenger loading and pick up area near the theater. It should safely accommodate patrons who need additional time to enter or leave a vehicle.

There must also be a backup plan when nearby garage elevators are unavailable. Accessibility should not depend entirely on one elevator working.

We request that the Hammer Theatre Center and members of the disability community be consulted as the plans are developed, and that the resulting protections be included as enforceable conditions of approval.

We are asking the City to carefully evaluate its impact and ensure that all members of the public can continue to access the theatre.
–Maria Bones
Interim Executive Managing Director
Hammer Theatre Center, SJSU
Attachment H: Public Comments Page 51
Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments Attachment H: Public Comments

Page 52 ends

San Jose City CouncilOctober 20, 2026

San Jose City Council
October 20, 2026