Attachments — San Jose City Council, October 20, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
1 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

JOSE DENYING A PERMIT APPEAL AND APPROVING,

SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, A SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHTSTORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH 276 DWELLING

UNITS AND UNDERGROUND PARKING, WITH FIVE

PERCENT AFFORDABLE UNITS RESTRICTED TO VERY

LOW-INCOME, SUBJECT TO THE STATE DENSITY

BONUS LAW, AND EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION HOURS
FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON SATURDAYS ON AN
APPROXIMATELY 0.89-GROSS-ACRE VACANT SITE,

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST SAN
CARLOS STREET AND GIFFORD AVENUE (1462-470
WEST SAN CARLOS STREET AND 321-329 GIFFORD
AVENUE, APN: 264-20-133)
FILE NO. H25-039
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code, on October 20, 2025, Urban Catalyst filed an application (File No. H25- 039) on behalf of the property owner, Delmas Senior PropCo LLC (“Permittee”), with the City of San José (“City”) for a Site Development Permit to allow the construction of an eight-story residential building with 276 dwelling units and underground parking, with five percent affordable units restricted to very low-income, subject to the state Density Bonus Law, and extended construction hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays on an approximately 0.89-gross-acre vacant site, on that certain real property located on the southwest corner of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue (1462-470 West San Carlos Street and 321-329 Gifford Avenue, APN: 264-20-133) (the “subject property”); and
WHEREAS, a legal description of the subject property is attached as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by reference; and
Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 1 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
2 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2026, the Planning Director considered public comments and all evidence and testimony received at the public hearing regarding the project and approved the project; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2026 and August 3, 2026, Bert Weaver and Trustee of Santa Rita Trust filed a timely appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code, this City Council conducted a de novo administrative hearing on said application and the appeal of the Planning Director’s decision, notice of which was duly given; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, this City Council received in evidence a plan for the subject property entitled, “THE GIFFORD (H25-039), 325 Gifford Ave, San Jose, CA 95126” dated April 27, 2026 and civil set dates June 30, 2026; said plan is on file in the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, is available for inspection, and is incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has heard and considered the testimony presented at the public hearing and has further considered written materials submitted on behalf of the project applicant, City staff, and other interested parties;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:

The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, and after considering evidence presented at the public hearing the City Council finds that the following are the relevant facts and findings regarding this project:

1. Site Description and Surrounding Uses. The subject property, approximately 0.89 gross acre, is located on the southwest corner of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue, at 470 West San Carlos Street. The site is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east, and south, and multifamily uses Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 2 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
3 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
along the north and single-family residences along the west property lines. Vehicle access to the site is provided along West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. South of the project site, on the same block, near the intersection of West San Carlos and Josefa Street there is a bus stop nk that the 23-bus line serves.

2. Project Description. The project consists of a Site Development Permit to allow the construction of an eight-story residential building with 276 dwelling units, with five percent affordable units restricted to very-low-income, subject to the state Density Bonus Law, and underground parking, on an approximately 0.89-gross-acre vacant site.

The applicant submitted a concurrent application under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for very-low-income households (50-80% Area Median Income). The project requests five waivers related to the stepback plane, skyline-level massing, balconies, ground-floor residential space, and podium-level massing.

3. Permit Findings. Permit findings with detailed analysis in the findings section. a. Site Development Permit Findings. Chapter 20.100.630 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code specifies the required findings for approval of a Site Development Permit.
i. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies; and
General Plan Consistency
The subject property is designated as Downtown on the land-use transportation diagram of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. This designation includes office, retail, service, residential, and entertainment uses in the Downtown. Redevelopment should be at very high intensities unless there is an inconsistency with other major policies within the General Plan. All development within this designation should enhance the “complete community” in downtown, support pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and increase transit ridership. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is up to 30 and the density is 800 dwelling units per acre.

The project is not opting to use the additional percentage to receive more units than allowed. More information about the Density Bonus application is included in Section 3.b below.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 3 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
4 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

Major Strategy #3 - Focused Growth: The Focused Growth Major Strategy plans for new residential and commercial growth capacity in specifically identified “Growth Areas” (Urban Villages, Plan areas, Employment Areas, Downtown) while the majority of the City is not planned for additional growth or intensification.

The strategy focuses new growth into areas of San José that will enable the achievement of economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and environmental stewardship goals, while supporting the development of new, attractive urban neighborhoods.

Growth Area Policy LU-2.1: Provide significant job and housing growth capacity within strategically identified “Growth Areas” in order to maximize use of existing or planned infrastructure (including fixed transit facilities), minimize the environmental impacts of new development, provide for more efficient delivery of City services, and foster the development of more vibrant, walkable urban settings.

Maximize Use of Public Transit Policy TR-3.4: Maintain and improve access to transit stops and stations for mobility-challenged population groups such as youth, the disabled, and seniors.

Housing Goal H-1: Provide housing throughout our City in a range of residential densities, especially at higher densities, and product types, including rental and for-sale housing, to address the needs of an economically, demographically, and culturally diverse population.

Housing Policy H-1.9: Facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing to meet San José’s fair share of the County’s and region’s housing needs.

Policy H-2.1: Facilitate the production of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing by maximizing use of appropriate policies and financial resources at the federal, state, and local levels; and various other programs.

Analysis: The project will provide 276 residential units, with 14 units restricted to very low-income households, increasing the City’s overall housing supply. The project will add to the existing housing diversity in the surrounding neighborhood, which includes a variety of multifamily developments and single-family residential.

The project is within the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP) and is approximately

0.6 miles from Diridon Station. The project would result in a high level of development on the subject property, consistent with the General Plan’s major strategy and policies that support focused growth and development near transit.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan policies above. ii. The Site Development Permit, as approved, conforms with the Zoning Code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and Zoning Ordinance Consistency
Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 4 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
5 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

The subject property is in the DC Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The project is consistent with the district's use regulations pursuant to Section

20.70.100 and Table 20-140 of the San Jose Municipal Code (“SJMC”), as noted below.

Land Use
Multifamily dwelling units are allowed in the DC Zoning District if the project complies with the Development Standards related to residential use. The construction of the residential units requires the issuance of a Site Development Permit, pursuant to Section 20.100.610.A.1.

Development Standards
Pursuant to Section 20.70.200, the following table sets forth the required development standards and the project’s proposed setbacks and height, per the submitted plans. Properties located within the DC Zoning District are subject to the height limitations necessary for the safe operation of San José International Airport, which are established by the Federal Aviation Administration. Properties located within the DC Zoning District are not subject to minimum or maximum setback requirements, pursuant to SJMC Section

20.70.210. It should be noted that the DSAP height limit of 110 feet takes precedence over the Zoning Code.

Setback Area Requirement Project
(approximately)
Front, Fronting West
San Carlos Street
No minimum 5 feet; Complies
Front, Fronting Gifford
Avenue
No minimum 2 feet; Complies
Rear, South Property
line
No minimum 0 feet; Complies
Rear, East property line No minimum 0 feet; Complies
Maximum Height 110 feet per DSAP 84 feet 10 inches;
complies
Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) and Parking
Vehicle Parking: Pursuant to SJMC Chapter 20.90, there is no minimum vehicle parking requirement, and the project provides 217 vehicle parking spaces.

Based on Table 20-0250, under Section 20.90.910, the project is classified as Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 5 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
6 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
a level one Home End Use as it includes more than 16 residential units and less than 299 residential units.

Analysis: The project requires a Transportation Demand Management Plan.

The applicant is required to submit a final TDM plan to the satisfaction of the San José Department of Transportation as part of their conditions of approval.

Bicycle Parking: For residential use, the project is required to provide one bicycle space per four residential units, under Table 20-210 in Chapter 20.90.

With 276 residential units, this calculates to 69 bicycle parking spaces.

Analysis: The project requires 69 bicycle parking spaces and provides 72 spaces. Long-term bike parking will be in a bike room on the first floor, and short-term parking will be in the public right-of-way along West San Carlos Street.

Two-Wheeled Vehicle (Motorcycle) Parking: Per Section 20.90.350, twowheeled motorized vehicle parking shall be provided at 2.5% of standard vehicle parking provided.

Analysis: The project provides 217 standard vehicle parking spaces; therefore, six two-wheeled vehicle parking spaces are required. The project provides six motorcycle parking spaces, consistent with the requirement.

Off-Street Loading Spaces: Pursuant to SJMC Section 20.70.435, multifamily use of 200 units or more but less than 500 units shall provide two off-street loading spaces. Pursuant to SJMC Section 20.90.420 and Section 20.90.430, each off-street loading space shall be at least 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet high and shall be accessible by driveways for ingress and egress.

Analysis: The project provides two off-street loading spaces, meeting the required number. The space does not meet the height requirement as the vehicle entrance is 10 feet. The loading space does not meet the 15 feet clear height as required by Section 20.70.420 of the Zoning Code. To allow twelve feet of height for the loading space, the project is conditioned to only allow Class 4 thru Class 6 delivery trucks in the parking garage loading area. The applicants will also apply for an on-street loading space along West San Carlos Street via a separate Public Works permit process.
iii. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals
The project is consistent with City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals. Two on-site signs have been posted at the site, facing West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue since February 6, 2026. The surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000- Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 6 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
7 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
foot radius were notified via mail of a Community Meeting held on May 4, 2026, via Zoom.

Community concerns generally focused on traffic impacts of the new project, including traffic safety for pedestrians, public right-of-way improvements, and parking impacts on Gifford Street. Additional comments related to AB130, State Density Bonus Law, Architectural Design, Construction Impacts, trash service and city technical review,
Notices for a public hearing were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property. Staff have been available to answer any questions from the public.
iv. The orientation, location, and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood.

The site provides vehicle and bicycle parking inside the building and on the adjacent public right-of-way, and all on-site uses are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious.
v. The orientation, location, and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood.

The project is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Applying these Guidelines ensures that relationships among structures and with other on-site uses are both functional and attractive. The project shares a similar design intent and architectural language with the nearby Aquino Project, approved under File No. SP20-019 and addenda. The ground-floor height is 15 feet and four inches; the adjacent building's height from the ground to the top of the ridge is 15 feet, reflecting the scale of neighborhood buildings at the podium and pedestrian levels. The project creates a welcoming pedestrian level, with residential units on the ground floor having front doors along Gifford Avenue, consistent with the existing residences along Gifford Avenue. The project design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as noted above. • Section 3.3, Standard ‘a’ – Place Active Uses along the edges of Public Space at the pedestrian level and not toward internal site spaces, unless Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 7 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
8 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
all requirements for active Frontages on Public Spaces have been met (see Section 5.3.1.a.)
Analysis: The residential lobby is located near the corner of Gifford Avenue and West San Carlos Street, accessible from the public sidewalk, consistent with the requirement.
• Section 3.5.1, Standard ‘a’ – Connect the primary pedestrian and bicycle building access directly to a public sidewalk, Public Open Space, or paseo, uninterrupted by a parking lot or vehicular circulation. See Section 5.5.2 Vehicle and Service Entry Design for information about Porte Cocheres and primary pedestrian entries.

Analysis: Access to the building as a pedestrian or bicyclist will be through the main lobby entrance; the project complies with this requirement.
• Section 4.4.1, Standard ‘b’ - Do not use strong expressions of horizontal or vertical elements that emphasize the facade more than the overall building form or structure, such as a projecting fin that does not serve a function like shading or control of the wind.

Analysis: The current stucco proposal uses blue vertical stucco stripes to break up the building's massing and create visual movement along the façade. The building's corner at the intersection of Gifford Avenue and West San Carlos Street serves as a prominent visual element. • Section 4.4.3, Standard ‘a’ - At the Pedestrian Level, use elements of stone, pre-cast concrete, terra cotta, masonry, or cast stone in addition to any other materials such as metal and glass.

Analysis: The pedestrian level uses metal and glass elements in the storefront system, as shown on sheet AP3.00. These materials will help create an active frontage at the pedestrian level.
vi. The environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to noise, vibration, air quality and dust, biological resources, water quality and storm water runoff, drainage, erosion, and odor, which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent property or properties.

Analysis: The project is located within an already urbanized area that is served by all necessary public and private utilities. The project is residential in nature and therefore would not be a generating source for excessive noise or odor. All construction activities would be temporary, and the construction hours are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, within 500 feet of residential uses. 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 with no concrete pours on Saturday.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 8 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
9 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

The project will be required to adhere to standard building and grading permit conditions. The project is also required to adhere to standard environmental permit conditions related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise to reduce and mitigate the temporary impacts of construction on surrounding properties.

The project is subject to Public Works requirements regarding sidewalk improvements, stormwater capture and drainage, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic per Public Works Final Memo dated July 9, 2026.. Additionally, this project must comply with the City’s Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Policy 6-29), which requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include site design measures, source controls, and numerically sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges, per Public Works Final Memo dated July 9, 2026. Based on the above requirements, the project will not have an unacceptable negative effect to the surrounding environment. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls and fences, features to conceal outdoor activities, exterior heating, ventilating, plumbing, utility, and trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.
vii. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls and fences, features to conceal outdoor activities, exterior heating, ventilating, plumbing, utility, and trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.

Analysis: The project includes both common and private open space for residents of the building. The common open space comprises a landscaped courtyard that serves as a social area for residents. Trash pickup will occur at the front along West San Carlos Street on the project's designated trash pickup day. Street trees will be planted along both street frontages to provide shade for pedestrians and soften the building's appearance.
viii.Traffic access and pedestrian access are adequate.

Analysis: Pedestrian access to the site will be via West San Carlos Street, and bicycle parking spaces will be located within a ground-floor room near the building's lobby entrance. There are two entrances along each street that provide access to the site. Vehicles will be parked in the site's ground-floor parking garage.
b. State Density Bonus Law Findings. The project includes an application pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for very-low-income households. The Downtown General Plan land use designation allows residential density at 800 dwelling units per acre, equivalent to 714 base units for the project site. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) and Government Code Section 65915(v)(1)(B), the project is Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 9 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
10 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
eligible for a 20% density bonus, or up to 56 additional units. The project includes 276 units and will not use the bonus to provide additional units. c. Incentives/Concessions. Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue incentives and concessions, such as reductions in development standards to facilitate the economically viable construction of affordable housing.

The applicant qualifies for four incentives/ concessions per Government Code Section 65915. The applicant qualifies for one incentive/ concession per Government Code Section 65915. The project did not request an incentive.

Waivers. Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue waivers to development standards if the standard being waived would physically prevent the project from being built with the allowed number of units. The project qualifies for unlimited waivers. The project has requested five waivers, as follows:
i. Waiver one. Per the Diridon Station Area Plan, the east side of the project is subject to the lot line stepback plan per figure 2-4-7. The east property line is shared with an adjacent lot and has a zero-foot setback per zoning. A stepback plane must begin at a height of 35 feet, with a six-foot stepback at a 75-degree angle from the horizontal.

Analysis: The project provides a 10-foot stepback beginning at 15 feet in height.

Full compliance with the stepback plane would significantly reduce unit sizes on floors 6 through 8. Compliance with this requirement would result in the loss of eight units. As a result of the waiver request, the stepback plane requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed. ii. Waiver two. Skyline Level Massing. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 4.3.2, for facades above 70 feet and wider than 200 feet, projects must include a change in massing (stepback or notch) at least 30 feet wide and 20 feet deep to reduce apparent bulk.

Analysis: The Gifford Avenue façade length is approximately 230 feet, requiring a change in massing. The project provides a 38-foot-wide by 3-foot-deep notch along Gifford Avenue. Providing the required 30-by-20-foot notch would result in a loss of at least six units as designed. As a result of the waiver request, the skyline-level massing requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.
iii. Waiver three. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 4.4.2.C, at least 50% of podium-level (below 70 feet) street-facing residential units must include balconies. Each balcony must be at least 4 feet deep by 20 feet wide.

Item No.
of balcony area, leaving a shortfall of approximately 1,720 square feet. Using the project's approximately 420-square-foot studio module, this additional required balcony area is equivalent to approximately 4.1 studio units, and would therefore result in a loss of at least four units. Full compliance would therefore physically preclude the project as designed by reducing residential yield and making the affected unit layouts infeasible. As a result of the waiver request, the balconies requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.
iv. Waiver four. Per the San José Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 5.3.3, Ground-floor residential units must be elevated 2 feet to 3 feet above grade to provide adequate separation from public space. The project provides ground-floor unit entries at grade level adjacent to open space.

Analysis: Raising the ground-floor units would require additional interior and exterior ramps to maintain accessibility, consuming valuable building space and reducing the square footage by at least one unit. As a result of the waiver request, the ground-floor residential space has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.
v. Waiver five. Per the San José Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 4.3.1, Podium-level building massing facing a public 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 be achieved through projections and recesses, material changes, shadow relief, or other architectural elements.

Analysis: Introducing an additional recessed area to keep façade segments under 80 feet would reduce residential unit area by approximately 540 square feet, equivalent to at least one unit. As a result of the waiver request, the podium-level massing has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.

Chapter 20.190.090 of the San José Municipal Zoning Code requires that any project with a Density Bonus, incentives, or development standard waivers must make the following findings:
i. The Housing Development is eligible for a Density Bonus and any Incentives, waivers or modifications requested.

Analysis: The project is entirely residential, consisting of at least 14 affordable rental units, and is therefore eligible for the State Density Bonus Law for affordable housing projects.
ii. If the Density Bonus is based on all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the requirements for a land transfer Density Bonus that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a land donation.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 11 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
12 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
iii. If the Density Bonus or Incentive request is based all or in part on the inclusion of a Child Care Facility, a finding that all of the requirements for a Child Care Facility Density Bonus that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a Child Care Facility. iv. If the Incentive request is for a Mixed-Use development, a finding that all the requirements for a Mixed-Use Incentive development approval that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project is not a Mixed-Use development.
v. If the Incentive includes a request for approval of condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements for a condominium conversion Incentive that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a request for condominium conversions.

In accordance with the findings set forth above, a Site Development Permit to use the subject property for said purpose specified above and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth is hereby approved. This City Council expressly declares that it would not have approved this Permit except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which conditions shall run with the land and be binding upon the owner and all subsequent owners of the subject property, and all persons who use the subject property for the use conditionally permitted hereby.

APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

Acceptance of Permit. Per San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.290(B), should Permittee fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Permittee shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Permittee:
a. Acceptance of the Permit by the Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this permit or other approval and the provisions of Title 20 applicable to such Permit.

2. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically expire two (2) years from and after the date of issuance hereof by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, if within such time period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings (if a Building Permit is required) has not commenced, pursuant to and in accordance with the provision of this Permit. The date of issuance Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 12 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
13 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
is the date this Permit is approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. However, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement may approve a Permit Adjustment to extend the validity of this Permit in accordance with Title 20. The Permit Adjustment must be approved prior to the expiration of this Permit.

3. Senate Bill 330 Expiration. The Senate Bill 330 Vesting shall automatically expire two (2) and one half years from and after the date of issuance of the “final approval” for the project as defined by and pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(D), if within such time period, the project has not “commenced construction”, as that term is defined and interpreted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(2)(D).

No change in the character of occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described in the Building Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required under San José Municipal Code Section 24.02.610, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws.

5. Sewage Treatment Demand. Pursuant to Chapter 15.12 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, acceptance of this Permit by Permittee shall constitute acknowledgement of receipt of notice by Permittee that (1) no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of this Permit when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand of the San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Facility will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility to treat such sewage adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region; (2) substantive conditions designed to decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approval authority; (3) issuance of a Building Permit to implement this Permit may be suspended, conditioned or denied where the City Manager makes a determination that such action is necessary to remain within the aggregate operational capacity of the sanitary sewer system available to the City of San José or to meet the discharge standards of the sanitary sewer system imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region.

6. Conformance to Plans. The development of the site and all associated development and improvements shall conform to the approved Site Development Permit plans entitled, “THE GIFFORD (H25-039), 325 Gifford Ave, San Jose, CA 95126” dated April 27, 2026 and civil set dates June 30, 2026 on file with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and to the San José Building Code (San José Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 13 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
14 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

Municipal Code, Title 24), with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

The plans are referred to herein as the “Approved Plans” or the “Approved Plan Set.”

7. Permit Adjustment. The Permittee must file for a permit adjustment to add an additional balcony column on Gifford Avenue and change the balcony color/face to a wood-like grain instead of blue.

8. Delivery Trucks. All delivery trucks entering the parking garage shall be limited to Class 4 to Class 6 trucks that can clear a 12-foot ceiling height and turning radius in the parking garage; larger trucks shall not be allowed.

9. Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for new construction, the Permittee shall submit a Permit Adjustment Application and enter into a Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement with the City. The final Regulatory Agreement, as amended and as approved by the City Attorney and by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder by the City. This Permit shall take effect upon the date of recordation of the Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement in the form approved by the City and shall have no force and effect prior to that date.

10.Extended Construction Hours. Normal construction hours within 500 feet of a residential unit are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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 with no concrete pours on Saturday. Permitted work activities shall be conducted within the interior of enclosed building structures and the exterior of the building structures. Exterior generators, water pumps, compressors and idling trucks are not permitted. Permittee shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, at their discretion, may rescind provisions to allow extended hours of construction activities on weekends upon written notice to the Permittee.

11.Construction Disturbance Coordinator. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this Permit, along with the name and telephone number of a Permittee-appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.

12.Conformance with Municipal Code. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the San José Municipal Code.

13.Compliance with Local, State, and Federal Laws. The subject use shall be conducted in full compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.

14.Discretionary Review. The City maintains the right of discretionary review of requests to alter or amend structures, conditions, or restrictions of this Permit incorporated by reference in accordance with Chapter 20.100 of the San José Municipal Code.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 14 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
15 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

15.Conformance with Previous Permits. Per the previously approved permit for File No. CP20-019, seven ordinance-size trees and 14 non-ordinance trees were removed during grading. The project is required to provide a total of 50 replacement trees at 15-gallon size or 25 trees at 24-inch box size. Prior to the issuance of building permit(s), the Permittee shall pay Off-Site Tree Replacement Fee(s) to the City for the total number of required replacement trees minus the number of trees shown on the Building Permit Landscape Plans in accordance with the City Council approved Fee Resolution in effect at the time of payment.

16.Tree Replacement Enforcement. Failure to plant trees in conformance with the Approved Plan Set may be subject to in lieu fees in accordance with the City Council approved Fee Resolution in effect at the time of payment per 15-gallon tree for trees not planted on-site.

17.Verification of Planting of Replacement Tree(s). After payment of the in-lieu fee and/or the planting of required replacement trees on-site, the Permittee shall provide appropriate evidence, such as but not limited to photographs and/or receipts, to the Planning Project Manager to verify compliance with the tree replacement mitigation requirements. Such evidence shall be uploaded to www.sjpermits.org using these instructions:
a. How to set up an account: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/business/developmentservices-permit-center/online-permits-at-sjpermits-org and b. How to upload:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88853/638088605255 430000
c. Such evidence shall also be emailed to the Planning Project Manager and labeled File No. H25-039.

18.Replacement Tree Failure. On-site replacement trees that fail within three years after planting shall be promptly replaced per Section 13.32.110.E of the San José Municipal Code.

19.Landscaping. Planting and irrigation are to be provided by the Permittee, as indicated, on the final Approved Plans. The Permittee, at their discretion, may submit changes to the Approved Landscape Plans with the issuance of a Permit Adjustment, before the issuance of Building Permits.

20.Irrigation Standards. Irrigation shall be installed in accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 15.11 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape Standards for New and Rehabilitated Landscaping, the City of San José Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and the Zonal Irrigation Plan in the Approved Plans. The design of the system shall be approved and stamped by a California Registered Landscape Architect.

21.Certification. Pursuant to San José Municipal Code Section 15.11.1050, certificates of substantial completion for landscape and irrigation installation shall be completed Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 15 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
16 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
by a licensed or certified professional and provided to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to approval of the final inspection of the project.

23.Building and Property Maintenance. The property shall be maintained in good visual and functional condition. This shall include, but not be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting, and landscaping.

24.Nuisance. This use shall be operated in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately upon notice by the City of San José.

25.Anti-Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed from buildings and wall surfaces, including job sites for projects under construction, within 48 hours of defacement.

26.Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litter, refuse, and debris. Cleaning shall include keeping all publicly used areas free of litter, trash, cigarette butts, and garbage.

27.Refuse. All trash and refuse storage areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the trash or refuse container(s). Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.

28.Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed or permitted unless designated on the Approved Plan Set.

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 standby/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 San José 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 José Municipal Code, as may be amended.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 16 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
17 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

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 shall 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 forth in San José Municipal Code Chapter 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 San José Municipal Code Chapter 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 San José Municipal Code Chapter 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.

36.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.

If Multifamily Housing Incentive Program or Downtown Residential Incentive Program allocations remain available at the time of building permit application, and the Permittee 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 Permittee 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. Permittee 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 Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 17 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
18 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
to the IHO 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;
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
Unit Type
Market Rate Units
Affordable Units
50% AMI
Total
NRSF Units
Total
Units NRSF
Total
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 Inclusionary Housing Agreement must be recorded (senior to all deeds of trust) on the land including all parcels needed to implement 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
Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 18 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
19 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

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 Permittee will be required to have satisfied all of the following Public Works conditions. The Permittee 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 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 José 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:

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 19 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
20 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
i. Associated with the implementation of the Diridon Station Area Plan (Chapter

14.35 of Title 14 of the San José Municipal Code) this project is subject to the City’s Diridon Station Area 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 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 Permittee.
d. Urban Village Plan: This project is located in a designated Urban Village per the Envision San José 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 José 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. f. 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 feet 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 San José 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 José 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 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 Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 20 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
21 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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.
g. Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Measures: This project must comply with the City’s 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 measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges.
i. The project’s Stormwater Control Plan and numeric sizing calculations have been reviewed and this project will be in conformance with City Council 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. Permittee 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 nonHydromodification Management area and is not required to comply with the City’s Post-Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14). i. 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.
j. Sewage Fees: In accordance with City of San Jose Municipal Code Chapter

15.16, all storm sewer area fees, sanitary sewer connection fees, and sewage Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 21 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
22 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
treatment plant connection fees, less previous credits, are due and payable prior to issuance of Public Works Clearance.
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 José Municipal Code) or the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 19.38 of Title 19 of the San José 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.
l. Street Improvements:
i. Construct curb, gutter, and 15’ attached sidewalk with tree wells at back of curb along San Carlos Street frontage.
ii. Construct curb, gutter, and 10’ attached sidewalk with tree wells at back of curb along Gifford Avenue frontage.
iii. Close unused driveway cuts.
iv. Construct a 26’ driveway on Gifford Avenue per CSJ Standard Detail R-5. v. Install handicap ramp at the southwest corner of San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue.
vi. Provide 3” conduit along San Carlos Street frontage to connect to future traffic signals.
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 and 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 ([email protected] Sr Bldg Permit Specialist) to change address assignment to San Carlos to eliminate inclusion in RPP.
xi. Permittee 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 San José 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 San José Municipal Code.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 22 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
23 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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 Implementation stage, Permittee 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 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 timeframe estimate of when each phase would be implemented. These sketches should include the type and location of the work 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. Permittee 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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 23 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
24 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
iii. If the proposed lane and parking closures are a part of the Revocable Permit Application, Permittee shall submit Downtown Lane Closure and Tow Away Permit Applications to the City’s Department of Transportation (“DOT”). These applications may be obtained at:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/?navid=1629. Permittee 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. 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 20’ on center in tree wells.
ii. West San Carlos Street: The recommended street trees are Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’ planted 30’ 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 – 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: Permittee agrees to either pay waste haulers the premium rate for push/pull collection service or collaborate with the City’s Department of Transportation, Department of Public Works, and Integrated Waste Management to develop a collection schedule that will prevent cars from parking in the dumpster staging area.
i. Prioritization of Trash Staging will be on West San Carlos Street. The following conditions will need to be satisfied:
1) The loading zone will be adjacent to the driveway where the trash will be wheeled out from, and
2) Permittee will ensure that dumpsters will be staged in the loading zone and will not block a travel lane.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 24 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
25 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

1. 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: 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.

39.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, as may be amended or updated by the City.

40.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.
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.
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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 25 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
26 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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.
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 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 building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the Permittee 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 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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 26 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
27 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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 shall be submitted to the City of San José 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 on-road 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 José Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s 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.
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:
i. Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and grounddisturbing 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.
ii. 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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 27 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
28 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
iii. 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:
i. Total diesel particulate matter emissions are less than 65 pounds and the nearest receptors are single-family residences;
ii. Total diesel particulate matter emissions are less than 24 pounds and the nearest receptors are multi-family residences; and
iii. The nearest sensitive receptors are more than 200 feet downwind from the project.
iv. 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 Permittee 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 any demolition, grading and/or building permit.
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 will make a determination as to whether the remains are Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 28 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
29 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

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. ii. 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.
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 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 City’s Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural materials.
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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 29 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
30 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

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 Director’s 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 Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 30 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
31 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
is determined that unacceptable settlements may occur, then alternative groundwater control systems shall be required.
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 Director’s 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 Director’s designee.
k. Haz-1.1: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the Permittee 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.
l. 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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 31 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
32 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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:
i. Pile driving is prohibited.
ii. 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 Director’s designee that the Construction Noise Mitigation Plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses.
iii. 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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 32 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
33 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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:
i. 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 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.
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-the-art 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 Permittee shall submit the site-specific, quantitative Construction Noise 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.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 33 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
34 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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 façades 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 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 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.
ii. Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.
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 Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 34 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
35 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
buildings. Portable jackhammers, saws, or grinders shall be used to minimize impacts to the ground.
v. The Permittee 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.

41.Vibration Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit, which occurs first, the Permittee 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 structure-specific 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; 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 report will include descriptions of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics, as required, to clearly Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 35 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
36 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.
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.

42.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 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.

In accordance with the findings set forth above, a permit to use the subject property for said purpose specified above is hereby approved.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 36 SAW:DHZ:KMF
09/11/2026
37 T-55007 / 2345276
Council Agenda:

Item No.

ADOPTED this _____ day of ___________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:

TONI J. TABER, MMC
City Clerk

NOTICE TO PARTIES
The time within which judicial review must be sought to review this decision is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

Attachment A: Site Development Permit Resolution Page 37 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce

STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FILE NO. H25-039/ER25-225
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 470 West San Carlos
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Development Permit for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of an eight-story building with 276 dwelling units on a 0.89-acre site.

CERTIFICATION
Under the provisions of Section 21080.66 (Added by AB 130 and amended by SB 158) of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as stated below, this project is found to be exempt from the environmental review requirements of Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is for a Site Development Permit to construct of an eight-story building with 276 dwelling units on a 0.89-acre site.

AB 130 CONSISTENCY
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21080.66, a residential project must meet the following criteria in order to qualify for a statutory exemption from CEQA under AB 130.

1. Project must meet the definition of a Housing Development Project: A project must meet the definition of a “Housing Development Project” per Section 65905.5(b) of the CA Government Code to qualify for a statutory exemption. The project meets this definition because it meets the following criteria:
• Project contains only residential units.
• Project is a mixed-use development consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions:
o At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use.
o At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following:
• The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. • No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. • At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following:
o The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. o The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use.
• The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site.

Attachment B: AB 130 Exemption Memo Page 1
Exemption for H25-039/ER25-225 The Gifford Residential Project • No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. • Transitional housing or supportive housing.
• Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code.

Eligibility: Consistent. The project is a residential development consisting of 276 residential units. Therefore, the project is a Housing Development Project as defined by Section 65589.5 (h)(2) of the Government Code.

2. Zoning and General Plan Consistency: The project must be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning.

Eligibility: Consistent. The project within the Downtown Commercial Zoning District and Downtown General Plan Land Use Designation. These designations allow for multi-family residential uses. The project would result in a density of 310 dwelling units/acre (DU/AC), consistent with the General Plan designation's maximum density of 800 DU/AC. The project would also be consistent with the required development standards for the Zoning district, including setbacks and height limits. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning.

3. Project site size limitations: The project site does not exceed 20 acres.

Eligibility: Consistent. The proposed project is approximately 0.89-acre site.

4. Project site must be in an urban area surrounded by urban uses: The project is located within an urban area and is surrounded by urban uses.

Eligibility: Consistent. The project site is located at the southwestern corner of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the west and south, single family residences to the east, and multi-family residences and commercial to the north.

Therefore, the project is located within an urban area and surrounded by urban uses.

5. The project meets minimum density requirements: The minimum density of the project is more than 15 DU/AC.

Eligibility: Consistent. The project would construct 276 dwelling units on a 0.89-acre site, resulting in a density of 310 DU/AC. Therefore, the density of the project is over 15 dwelling units/acre.

6. The project will not demolish a historic structure: The project does not propose demolition of a historic structure placed on a national, state, or local historic register (the City’s Historic Resources Inventory).

Eligibility: Consistent. The project site is currently vacant land and does not have any historic structures.

7. The project is not on natural or protected lands: The proposed project cannot be on natural and protected lands, as defined pursuant to Section 21067.5, based on the following criteria:
a. Site is not on prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. b. Site does not contain wetlands.

Attachment B: AB 130 Exemption Memo Page 2
Exemption for H25-039/ER25-225 The Gifford Residential Project c. Site is not within a fire hazard area.
d. The site is not a hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 unless either of the following apply:
o The site is an underground storage tank site that received a uniform closure letter issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code based on closure criteria established by the State Water Resources Control Board for residential use or residential mixed uses OR
o The State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or a local agency making a determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 25296.10 of the Health and Safety Code, has otherwise determined that the site is suitable for residential use or residential mixed uses.
e. Site is not within an earthquake fault zone.
f. Site is not within a flood hazard area or floodway.
g. Site is not designated for conservation.
h. Site is not habitat for protected species.

Eligibility: Consistent. The project site is a vacant lot, surrounded by urban uses. The site does not contain any sensitive habitats. The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The site is not within an earthquake fault zone, flood hazard area, nor is it on natural or protected lands.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The City sent AB 130 Tribal Consultation Invitations to Tribal Representative of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Tamien Nation, and Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone People on March 19, 2026. All three tribes formally requested to consult on this project.

However, the City did not receive a response from the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ohlone People representative after initiating consultation and attempting to schedule a meeting.

The City met with Muwekma Ohlone Tribe on April 7, 2026 and Tamien Nation on May 8. Both tribes recommended Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training for construction personnel and monitoring during ground disturbing activities by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative. The tribes confirmed that the City’s Standard Permit Conditions for Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources were consistent with their recommendations. These conditions were included in the Site Development Permit. Consultation closed on May 18, 2026.

CONCLUSION
The project is a qualifying Housing Development Project that meets project site size and unit density requirements. The project is in an urban area and consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. The project site is not located on natural or protected lands, a hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5, nor is it within fire, earthquake, or flood hazard areas. Therefore, the project qualifies for a statutory exemption under CEQA Section 21080.66 and AB 130.

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Director
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Date July 22, 2026
Deputy
Environmental Project Manager: Bethelhem Telahun
Attachment B: AB 130 Exemption Memo Page 3
CITYOF A Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application
PLANNING DIVISION 05/20/2024 SUBJECT TO CHANGE

SANJOSE
"ow-. APPEAL OF PERMIT APPLICATION Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
The San Jose City Council or Planning Commission may
hear appeals to the issuance of a development permit,
variance, or exception. Not all permit processes
allow for an appeal. Please refer to Table 20-260 of
Municipal Code 20.100.220 for a complete list of the
types of permit that may be appealed and the related
hearing body.

The decision made by the hearing body is final and shall be effective immediately.

This application form must be completed as instructed
below to facilitate the appeal.

WHO MAY APPEAL
The applicant, or any property owner or tenant of a
property within 1,000 feet of the subject site, may file the appeal. The appellant must sign this application or if signed by the appellant's lawful power of attorney,
you must submit written evidence to that person's
authority.

Exception for Tree Removal Permits - For a Tree
Removal Permit, only property owners or occupants of
the subject site or of properties immediately adjacent
or across the street from the subject site may appeal.

Exception for Tentative Maps - Any person may file.

DEADLINE
File this completed application on or no later than 10
calendar days after a copy of the permit decision by
the Planning Commission or Director of Planning has
been mailed to the project applicant. Permit decisions
are typically made on Wednesdays with the issued
permit mailed two days later on a Friday. Therefore,
the 10-day deadline is commonly the second Monday
following the hearing (by 5:00 p.m.).

Exception for Tentative Maps - The appeal must be
filed within 10 calendar days of the permit approval.

Page 1 ends

FEES & PROCESS
The application filing fee must be paid by the deadline as previously explained. Find the current fee for a
Permit Appeal on the Table of Applications at www.
sanjoseca.gov/PlanningApplications . For Tree Removal
Permits, a Public Noticing fee will also be charged.

HOW TO SUBMIT - 2 OPTIONS
• In-Person (no appointment required): Before the
filing deadline stated above, come to the Planning
Offices, third floor of City Hall (200 E. Santa Clara
Street, San Jose) to submit the application. You may
pay the appeal fee in-person or staff may email you
an invoice which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.
• Email: Before the filing deadline stated above, email the completed application and any attachments to
[email protected]. If the appeal is timely
and complete, staff will send you an invoice for the
appeal fee, which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.

WHAT TO SUBMIT
□ This application form, completed and signed.
□ Assessor's parcel map showing the subject site
outlined.

City staff will set a public hearing date with the Planning Commission or City Council as appropriate. The appeal
item will be placed on the agenda. Staff will also
prepare a recommendation of action to the Planning
Commission or City Council.

FOR QUESTIONS
Speak with a City Planner at 408-535-3555; see phone
service hours at www.sanjoseca.gov/Planning.

Para informacion en espanol, comuniquese con un
Planificador de la ciudad al 408-793-4100.
e duoc ho tro, noi chuyen voi Nguoi lap ke
hoach thanh pho tai 408-793-4174.
continued>
PLANNING DIVISION 408-535-3555 SAN JOSE CITY HALL, 200 E. SANTA CLARA ST., SAN JOSE, CA 95113 WWW.SANJOSECA.GOV/PLANNING APPEAL OF PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 2 OF 2
Please download and save this computer-fillable form to your computer. Follow instructions for Digital Forms.

1. The undersigned respectfully requests an appeal to the permit issued for the property located at:

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

PROPERTY OWNER NAME:

PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS:

Ϯ͘ Z^KEͬ^ &KZ WW>͗ If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet.

3. PERSON FILING APPEAL
RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT SITE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: ⑥ Property Owner ⑥ Adjacent Property Owner ⑥ Tenant on Site ⑥ Property Owner/Tenant Within 1,000 feet ⑥ Tentative Map Appeal (anyone may appeal) PRINT NAME:

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMAIL: PHONE:
භ SIGNATURE OF PERSON FILING THE APPEAL DATE: [MM/DD/YYYY] For electronic submittal or virtual appointments, a Digital ID Signature is required.

For in-person appointments, an original ink signature is required.

4. CONTACT PERSON IF DIFFERENT FROM PERSON FILING APPEAL PRINT NAME:

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMAIL: PHONE:

K&&/ h^ KE>z
FILE NUMBER:

INTAKE DATE: BY: PAID: $
COMMENTS:

W>EE/E' /s/^/KE ϰϬϴͳϱϯϱͳϯϱϱϱ ^E :K^ /dz ,>>͕ ϮϬϬ ͘ ^Ed >Z ^d͕͘ ^E :K^͕  ϵϱϭϭϯ ttt͘^E:K^͘'KsͬW>EE/E' Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 2 ends

462-470 West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue
Delmas Senior Propco LLC
470 West San Carlos, CA 95126
Appellant appeals the approval of Site Development Permit H25-039 for "The Gifford." The appeal challenges the City's approval because the required findings are not supported by substantial evidence and the administrative record contains material inconsistencies that were not resolved prior to approval. For example, it was widely known that the tenants on this site were receiving financial assistance from the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. The appeal specifically challenges the Density Bonus Law findings and waivers, the Site Development Permit findings, unresolved design and Public Works issues, inconsistencies in the project description and supporting documentation, the City's reliance on future revisions to project documents and conditions of approval to support present findings, and the permit's reliance on an invalid environmental determination. See the attached Statement of Reasons for Permit Appeal and the S+NI letters dated July 3 and July 13, 2026, which are incorporated by reference.
✔
Bert Weaver
07/31/2026
1 STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PERMIT APPEAL
Project: The GiƯord – Site Development Permit H25-039
This appeal does not challenge the City’s policy objective of encouraging housing development. The rezoning of the site from a commercial senior assisted-living use to residential housing will help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations by allowing additional housing on a site already identified for urban development. Neighborhood leaders recognize the need for new housing and support the appropriate use of this site for residential development.

The surrounding neighborhood has consistently supported higher-density and aƯordable residential development. Its concerns are not directed at the number of homes proposed, the inclusion of aƯordable housing, or the transition of the property to residential use. The neighborhood’s participation in this process reflects a desire to ensure that the project is thoughtfully designed, that its impacts are adequately addressed, and that the City follows the legal standards that apply to the approval.

Rather, it challenges whether the City complied with the procedural and evidentiary requirements imposed by state law and the San José Municipal Code before approving the Site Development Permit. The administrative record demonstrates that required findings were made while material aspects of the project remained unresolved, internally inconsistent, or subject to future revision.

1. The Administrative Record Was Not Complete or Internally Consistent Prior to Approval.

The Site Development Permit was approved despite numerous unresolved inconsistencies within the administrative record. These include conflicting project descriptions, conflicting aƯordable housing compliance documents, inconsistent descriptions of requested Density Bonus relief, conflicting project addresses and parcel references, unresolved Public Works documentation, changing descriptions of construction hours, conflicting descriptions of parking configurations, and diƯering statements concerning the project's environmental documentation and building height.

Rather than resolving these inconsistencies prior to making the required statutory findings, the City improperly relied upon future revisions, permit conditions, and later post-hoc clarifications. A permit approval must be supported by a complete and internally consistent administrative record at the time the required findings are made.

Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 3 ends

2 2. The Density Bonus Findings Misstate the Base Density and Bonus Calculation.

The Project proposes 276 units, including 14 Very-Low-Income units. The findings, however, improperly analyze a theoretical maximum density of 714 units and a 143-unit density bonus, even though the applicant does not propose any bonus units. The findings must accurately identify the project actually proposed and the statutory relief actually requested.

3. The Permit Fails to Identify the Statutory Basis for Each Requested Deviation.

The administrative record inconsistently characterizes requested project modifications as Density Bonus waivers, SB 330 protections, Downtown Design Guideline exceptions, or non-applicable items. The permit alternatively states that the applicant requested one concession, no concessions, fourteen waivers, and five waivers. The Hearing OƯicer approved the project without identifying the legal basis for each requested deviation or making the findings specific to each statutory mechanism.

The administrative record should clearly identify which requested deviations are authorized under Government Code section 65915, which are protected by SB 330, which constitute Downtown Design Guideline exceptions, and which require independent discretionary findings.

4. The Record Lacks Substantial Evidence Supporting the Required Density Bonus Waiver Findings.

Government Code section 65915 requires substantial evidence demonstrating that each waived development standard would physically preclude construction of the project at the permitted density.

The applicant repeatedly and improperly equates physical preclusion with:
ξ Loss of units;
ξ Reduced unit size;
ξ Reduced design eƯiciency;
ξ Reduced residential floor area; or
ξ The necessity to redesign the project.

These assertions do not, standing alone, constitute substantial evidence of physical preclusion. None of these statements demonstrates that compliance with the applicable development standard would physically prevent construction of the project at the density otherwise permitted under the Density Bonus Law. The waiver exhibit contains conclusory statements rather than project-specific architectural, engineering, or quantitative Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 4 ends

3 analyses. Furthermore, oral testimony at the Director's Hearing summarized requested waivers but provided no additional factual analysis to cure these written evidentiary deficiencies.

5. Stepback and Massing Findings Are Unsupported by Substantial Evidence.

The record contains no substantial evidence demonstrating that neighborhood transition standards, skyline-level massing requirements, or step back plane requirements physically preclude construction of the project. The record lacks alternative massing studies, building-envelope analyses, architectural alternatives, or quantitative evaluations demonstrating that comparable residential density could not be achieved while complying with neighborhood transition standards. Instead, the record assumes that any reduction in eƯiciency or residential floor area necessarily constitutes physical preclusion, an assumption not supported by substantial evidence.

6. Permit Findings Improperly Rely Upon Future Revisions Rather Than Present Compliance.

The permit repeatedly relies upon future revisions to project documents and conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements. These include unresolved design revisions, Public Works revisions, service-location changes, environmental documentation, and other project details that remained subject to future modification after permit approval. Required findings must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating present compliance at the time of decision, not anticipated future revisions.

7. Design Conformance Findings Are Unsupported and Premature.

The permit concludes that the project complies with the Downtown Design Guidelines while simultaneously requiring future revisions to architectural materials, balcony treatments, columns, and other design elements. Similarly, loading, waste management, parking, sidewalk, street-tree, sewer, and service-location issues remained unresolved at the time of approval. The Director therefore approved a project before present compliance with applicable design findings was demonstrated.

8. The Record Contains Materially Inconsistent Building Height Determinations.

The administrative record contains multiple building-height determinations that changed throughout project review. StaƯ reports identify one height, while subsequent submissions and testimony describe a diƯerent measurement methodology and resulting height.

Because building height directly impacts the City's statutory analysis under Assembly Bill 130 and local development standards, the City was required to reconcile these diƯering Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 5 ends

4 measurements, identify the governing methodology, and correct the written findings prior to permit approval.

9. Public Works Findings Rely Upon Unresolved and Deferral-Based Issues.

The permit contains unresolved inconsistencies concerning loading facilities, parking dimensions, trash staging, sidewalk configuration, street trees, sanitary sewer capacity, and transportation analysis. Rather than resolving these issues prior to approval, the City deferred them to post-approval review or future permit conditions. These unresolved issues further demonstrate that material aspects of project compliance remained under review at the time the required findings were made.

10. The Permit Relies Upon a Defective and Separately Appealed Environmental Determination.

The permit incorporates the City's AB 130 environmental determination, which is separately appealed and incorporated herein by reference. The permit further relies upon environmental documentation that evolved continuously during review—including reliance on an outdated Soil Management Plan prepared for a prior project, deferred environmental oversight, and conditional measures to address site contamination. Approval of the SDP prior to securing a legally suƯicient, final environmental determination constitutes procedural error.

11. Reference to the nearby Aquino project.

The project in question is on a much narrower street with diƯerent characteristics, taking this project and copying it here does not conform with the design guidelines or best practices. It is entirely inconsistent, incompatible and lacks any aesthetic harmony with historic homes along GiƯord.

12. Saturday work
The project excludes concrete pours on Saturday. Please also include ground excavation and any other soil work in the list of excluded items to be performed on Saturdays.

Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 6 ends

5 REQUESTED RELIEF
Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council grant the appeal, set aside approval of Site Development Permit H25-039, and remand the project for further proceedings on a revised project.

Prior to reconsidering the application, the City must be directed to:

1. Complete and reconcile the administrative record;

2. Correct the project description and supporting documentation;

3. Clearly identify the specific statutory basis for every requested deviation;

4. Adopt Density Bonus findings supported by substantial evidence demonstrating physical preclusion for each individual waiver;

5. Resolve outstanding design, Public Works, and service-location issues prior to approval;

6. Reconcile all conflicting building-height determinations within the record; and

7. Adopt a legally suƯicient and final environmental determination before taking action on the Site Development Permit.

This neighborhood has demonstrated its support for the development of hundreds of new homes in the surrounding area, including higher-density and aƯordable housing.

Neighborhood leaders look forward to the City’s review of a revised and improved residential project that addresses the unresolved issues identified in this appeal and complies with all applicable legal requirements.

Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 7 ends

Attachment C: Permit Appeal Appli cation
First American
E] claritvfirst" rawa» 466 W SAN CARLOS ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 O F FI C E 0 F C O U N T Y A S S E S S 0 R � S A N T A C O U N T Y Page8
Tax Map 466 W SAN CARLOS ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 7/13/2026 Page 1 (of 2) All information contained herein is subject to the Limitation of Liability for Informational Report set forth on the last page hereof. ©2005-2020 F irst American Financial Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

I
� *' *""*"**. Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application
FirstAmerican
■ clarityfirst" rax Map 466 W SAN CARLOS ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 I Limitation of Liability for Informational Report
IMPORTANT- READ CAREFULLY: THIS REPORT IS NOT AN INSURED PRODUCT OR SERVICE OR A REPRESENTATION OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. IT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT OR PRELIMINARY REPORT, OR ANY FORM OF TITLE INSURANCE OR GUARANTY. THIS REPORT

IS ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT THEREFOR, AND MAY NOT BE USED OR RELIED UPON BY ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT FIRST AMERICAN'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONS ENT. FIRST AMERI CAN DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS

COMPLETE OR FREE FROM ERROR, AND THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, AS-IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS. AS A MATERIAL PART OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE

ISSUANCE OF THIS REPORT, RECIPIENT AGREES THAT FIRST AMERI CAN 'S SOLE LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE

CAUSED BY AN ERROR OR OMISSION DUE TO INACCURATE INFORMATION OR NEGLIGENCE IN PREPARING THIS REPORT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FEE CHARGED FOR THE REPORT. RECIPIENT ACCEPTS THIS REPORT WITH THIS LIMITATION AND

AGREES THAT FIRST AMERICAN WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THIS REPORT BUT FOR THE LIMITATI ON OF LIABILITY DESCRIBED ABOVE. FIRST AMERICAN MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE INFORMATI ON HERE IN.

Tax Map
Page9
466 W SAN CARLOS ST, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 7/13/2026 Page 2 (of 2) ©2005-2020 First American Financial Corporation and/or its affil iates. All rights reserved.

CITYOF A Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application
PLANNING DIVISION 05/20/2024 SUBJECT TO CHANGE

The decision made by the hearing body is final and shall be effective immediately.

This application form must be completed as instructed
below to facilitate the appeal.

Exception for Tentative Maps - Any person may file.

Exception for Tentative Maps - The appeal must be
filed within 10 calendar days of the permit approval.

Page 10 ends

WHAT TO SUBMIT
□ This application form, completed and signed.
□ Assessor's parcel map showing the subject site
outlined.

FOR QUESTIONS
Speak with a City Planner at 408-535-3555; see phone
service hours at www.sanjoseca.gov/Planning.

1. The undersigned respectfully requests an appeal to the permit issued for the property located at:

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

PROPERTY OWNER NAME:

PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS:

Ϯ͘ Z^KEͬ^ &KZ WW>͗ If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet.

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMAIL: PHONE:
භ SIGNATURE OF PERSON FILING THE APPEAL DATE: [MM/DD/YYYY] For electronic submittal or virtual appointments, a Digital ID Signature is required.

For in-person appointments, an original ink signature is required.

4. CONTACT PERSON IF DIFFERENT FROM PERSON FILING APPEAL PRINT NAME:

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMAIL: PHONE:

K&&/ h^ KE>z
FILE NUMBER:

INTAKE DATE: BY: PAID: $
COMMENTS:

Page 11 ends

Page 12 ends

QWNER'S STATEMENT

WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF OR HAVE SOME RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN AND TO THE REAL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THE MAP; THAT WE ARE THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS CLEAR TITLE TO SAID REAL PROPERTY; AND THAT WE HEREBY CONSENT TO THE MAKING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE AND ALL DEDICATIONS AND OFFERS OF DEDICATION THEREIN.

THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW IS DEDICATED AS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES: PUBLIC STREET AND

PORTIONS OF PUBLIC STREETS NOT PREVIOUSLY EXISTING AS SHOWN ON THE MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION FOR ANY AND ALL PUBLIC USES UNDER, UPON AND OVER SAID STREETS.

WE ALSO HEREBY DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE EASEMENTS FOR SIDEWALK PURPOSES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO AND

THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, USE AND REPLACE A PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON OR OVER THOSE CERTAIN STRIPS OF LAND DESIGNATED AND DELINEATED AS "SE" (SIDEWALK EASEMENT). AS REQUIRED BY SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE

14.16.2200, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO, PROPERTY OWNER ADJACENT TO OR FRONTING ON ANY PORTION OF A SIDEWALK AREA IS REQUIRED TO REPAIR AND MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK AREA.

ONER

DELMAS SENIOR PROPCO LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: URBAN CATALYST OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ITS SOLE MEMBER BY: URBAN CATALYST MANAGER LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ITS MANAGER <z.-a ERIK HAYDEN. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY o±rt: 8/6) 2 l •

OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE

INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
oN Awpol5, a091 rhiA rue\oKou( NOTARY PUBLIC,
PERSONALLY APPEARED �

WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATIS FACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS,ARE

SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHEIEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS/HER/TMEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(ES) AND BY HIS/HER,/THEIR SIGNATURE(G) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAN?\
.« (q+y0tu wean Arla Koy O\
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SATase., CA
wY cowwissiow Nuwetk &312)932
w cowwissiov ExPiEs (-lobe.n,303-\

TRUSTEE

WEST BAY CAPITAL, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: WESTSIDE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ITS: MANAGER

Page 12 ends

BY:

BY: EDWARD R. MAREK, JR.

ITS: MANAGER
om Augos\ 1,2ozi
Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application
PARCEL MAP CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS
BEING ALL OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "MAP OF THE GIFFORD ADDITION BEING LOT 2, SUNOL PARTITION, OF A PART OF THE LOS COCHES RANCHO SANTA CLARA CO. CAL.", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MAY 5, 1905 IN BOOK K OF MAPS, AT PAGE 71.

LYING WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

DATE: AUGUST 2021
Civil
Engineering
Associates
Civil Engineers • Planners • Surveyors

TRUSTEE'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE

INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF _SANTA CIRA Los Avge\e �
ow Eugas* 9,2-02L , 6trot Mc, \\a.. Abe rag\s A NOTARY PVBUC, PERSONALLY APPEARED Fwoed (' ore«DR. WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(3) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED JO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN His/jEfIwEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES) AND BY HIS/HER/TJEIR SIGNATURE[S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(3), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(8) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
wvEss wY HaNo � 1 /
sawnrc,i71 »y\
NAwE (PRINT) ca. • >ere9\5<k
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS (0 >ge (es, C/\
MY cowMIssioN NUMBER 7.2.3460©
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES {\pc\\ � 222

SURVEYOR'SSTATEMENT
i ADAM M. DERAGISCH
NottryPul:llc
:3.
• Cllilornia I
: My Comm. Expires Apr 12. 2022

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE

WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF URBAN CATALYST UC TDT JV, LLC SEPTEMBER, 2019, } HEREBY STATE THAT ALL THE MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE �ONS INDICAJW'�
OJl TH'AT THEY \\1LL BE SET IN THOSE POSITIONS BEFORE JANUARY .
2025, AND
THAT THE MONUMENT8 ARE, OR WILL.
, SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED, AND THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS. TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALL? APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY � � � � aee � � � □ sis • ls/zcz oecw tee � � � �� is No. 9104 /
2/
3 � �

SOILS AND GEOLOGICAL REPORI

A SOILS REPORT AND/OR GEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN PREPARED BY EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC DATED JULY 28, 2020, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CITY OF SAN JOSE. <T20-020
26/47123
1TYENGINEER'SSTATEMENT
I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE HEREON PARCEL MAP; THAT THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN HEREON IS

SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY, AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, AS AMENDED, AND OF ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF REQUIRED, HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

I ALSO HEREBY ACCEPT, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, THE DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS AND PORTIONS

THEREOF AND ALL EASEMENTS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE.

C1TYLANDSURVEYOR'SSTATEMENT
MATTHEW ALAN CANO, RCE 65479

CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE HEREO
·
N
·
S
.

UBDIVI
.

SION MAP AND I AM SATISFl�

THAT SAID MAP IS
TECHNICALLY CORRECT.
� •/e/vet 2� ' -1 f 7/2 skec onoY, is 6672

CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
APPROVAL. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
I STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP HAS BEEN CHECKED AND COMPLIES WITH THE TENTATIVE MAP (T20-020) AND ITS CONDITIONS AS APPROVED ON THE (2]H_DAY OF 1A •202µ

CHU CHANG

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
pat lo/la/2( •Jass2

RECORDER'SSTATEMENT
ntr No. 2.5747/23 rt $ 8 .6. *
° pno. ACCEPTED FOR RECORD AND FILED THIS ZS DAY
or Oc/a8« ,202/ AT 7:/.4 u. N eoox � 3 or uAPs AT PAGE(S) 3 . � , SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, AT THE REQUEST OF CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY.

REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, COUNTY RECORDER

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
��
8Y: � <72
DEPUTY
Oscar 40/4 SHEET 1 OF 2 �� s«we � 19s9e
/
f 1 �
�
Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 13 ends

Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 13 ends

Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 13 ends

NOTES

1. ALL DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

2. THE AREA WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER IS 0.895 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

3. THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE DENOTES THE BOUNDARY OF THIS SUBDIVISION.

BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BEARING NORTH 53°50'00" EAST AS FOUND MONUMENTED ON W SAN CARLOS STREET, AS SHON ON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED FOR RECORDED IN BOOK 735 OF MAPS AT PAGE 38, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR ALL BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS MAP.
-LEGEND
..
- -� DISTINCTIVE BOUNDARY
- -- RIGHT OF WAY
� EXISTING PROPERTY LINE � - CENTER LINE
------ - - NEW EASEMENT LINE

BOUNDARY TIE
Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application
@ FOUND BRASS DISK IN CITY MONUMENT WELL (AS NOTED)
• FOUND IRON PIPE (AS NOTED)
O SET %" IRON PIPE OR NAIL & TAG, TAGGED LS 9104
�� FOUND NAIL (AS NOTED)
(100.00')[1] RECORD DATA W/ REFERENCE

ABBREVIATIONS

FD FOUND

MON MONUMENT

NTS NOT TO SCALE

ROW RIGHT-OF-WAY

SFNF SEARCHED FOR NOT FOUND

SE SIDEWALK EASEMENT
I
I
� L � 002 z:FD MAG NAIL & TAG � RCE 25681 [4I7]
«o «goo (J / 4o.oo [3) � 4o oo (3I
FD GRANITE MON ·--• N535210°E � � �' I _J 0 06 ° ] FD SURVEY MARKER MAG SPIKE W »sass is s«ss (1zi
m1 2(s), woot)[/ooo s□.j nsoo ()_
3 N51°38 18"E
(N5140 00"E)[2I3]
(N51*38 05°E)[7]
3488 [7](3473 )[ 5
07o0 Mi � (PUBUc STREET)
7

Page 13 ends

IN MON BOX [4I5I7] 25.30' (25.00')(4] (25.26')[7] �
� � N53752'10"E
N36'07'50"W (N36107'46"W)[7] 617.09' (617.38')[7] 24 87 (25 00 )[4] (24 81 )[7] 232.06 1s9.8s' (isooo')f4] (15a.91)7] � -4oo9 (40 06 )2) � ... 18507 ' (231.94')[4] (232.05')[7] �� f
I
LOT 2

PUBLIC STREET DEDICATION

SEE DETAIL B
- - � 241 99 � � �
R=5.00'
-9213'52"
L=8.05' LOT 28
07(00 AM
{PUBUC STREET)
N36°07'50"W 247.19'
N36°07 50"W 236.91'
LOT 1
38,964 SF

RECORD OF SURVEY
883 M 26

MAP OF GIFFORD ADDITION
F3 M 85 � K M 7'
N36°07 50"w 160o0
FD %" IP W/ PLUG
LS 3566 [4]I7]
40 00 [3]
0 28
u
C_I
40 00 [3]
o4 ssmz7
{PUBUC STREET)
N53'52'10"E

25.07'
225.16
(25.00')[4] (25.09')(7]
au S F ! o S
LOT 16
I.OT 17
LOT 18
LDT 19
40 00 [3] 40 00 [3] 114 92 (115 00')[3]
<T20-020>
25/47/23
I
I
30 po
� � 9 s
i
PARCEL MAP CONSISTING OF TWO (2) SHEETS
BEING ALL OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "MAP OF THE GIFFORD ADDITION BEING LOT 2, SUNOL PARTITION, OF A PART OF THE LOS COCHES RANCHO SANTA CLARA CO. CAL.", WHICH MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN

THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MAY 5, 1905 IN BOOK K OF MAPS, AT PAGE 71.

LYING WTHIN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. &
I
I
I 30
�
i es sg
� � sa �
I
� 3
DATE: AUGUST 2021
Civil
Engineering
Associates
Civil Engineers • Planners • Surveyors
2055 Gateway Place Suite 550 Son Jose, CA 95110
L
I

MAP REFERENCES
[1] RECORD OF SURVEY - 735 M 38
[2] McCLORY TRACT SUBDIVISION MAP - D M 19
[3] MAP OF GIFFORD ADDITION - F3 M 85 / K M 71
[4] CORNER RECORD NO. 1851
[5] RECORD OF SURVEY - 914 M 33
[6] RECORD OF SURVEY - 203 M 31
[7] RECORD OF SURVEY - 888 M 26
".".a.

DETAIL A
NTs
07004E
(PUBLIC STREET)
N36°07'50"W. 247.19'

5.20' 241.99'
� < R=5.00'
- 13--s213s2°
� �� -sos � �
g � LOT 1

DETAILB
i'-8
GRAPHIC SCALE 40
"-■ 0
- 20 40
( IN FEET )
1 INCH = 40 FT
80 I
SHEET 2 OF 2 � � sc z see
4/
Reason for Appeal of the The Site Development Permit
File Nos: H25-039 & ER25-225 (The Gifford)
Santa Rita Trust supports thoughtful residential development and recognizes the City's obligation to facilitate new housing. However, the approval of a Site Development Permit is a discretionary action that requires findings supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

The issue before the Planning Commission is not whether the project may ultimately satisfy the California Building Code or California Fire Code during future permit review. Rather, the issue is whether the Director possessed substantial evidence to make the findings required by San José Municipal Code § 20.100.630 and Government Code § 65915 at the time the Site Development Permit was approved.

The administrative record demonstrates that those findings were made before several critical issues had been fully evaluated or resolved.

1. The Record Does Not Support the Director's Fire Safety Findings Before approving the Site Development Permit, the Director was required by San José Municipal Code § 20.100.630 to find that the project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or adversely affect surrounding properties. The administrative record does not support those findings.

The applicant's Fire Variance Application acknowledges that portions of the proposed building exceed the California Fire Code's standard fire apparatus access requirements by locating exterior walls approximately 210 feet from fire apparatus access roads and eliminating the customary six-foot perimeter access path along the south and east property lines. The applicant therefore requested a Fire Department variance and proposed enhanced sprinkler protection as an alternative means of compliance.

The variance request is significant because it confirms that the approved design does not satisfy the standard fire access requirements without discretionary relief. Consistent with that unresolved issue, the approved permit defers compliance with applicable Fire Code requirements until the Building Permit stage rather than demonstrating that the required fire access issues had been resolved before discretionary approval.

Santa Rita Trust raised these concerns through written comments and public testimony, requesting clarification regarding fire access, building separation, and life-safety measures.

Reason for Appeal by Santa Rita Trust 8/3/26 Re: File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 1 Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 14 ends

Those concerns remained unresolved when the Director approved the Site Development Permit.

The question before the Planning Commission is not whether the project may ultimately comply with the California Fire Code. Rather, it is whether the Director had an adequate evidentiary basis to make the findings required by San José Municipal Code § 20.100.630 at the time of approval. Because the record demonstrates that the project required a discretionary Fire Department variance while deferring resolution of critical fire access issues to future permit review, the Director's findings regarding public safety and impacts on surrounding properties are not supported by the administrative record.

2. The Density Bonus Waiver Findings Do Not Satisfy Government Code § 65915.

Government Code § 65915 authorizes a waiver only where application of a development standard would physically preclude construction of the development at the permitted density.

The Director concluded that the requested waiver was justified because compliance with the Downtown Design Standards would reduce unit efficiency and eliminate approximately eight residential units as designed
However, the administrative record contains no analysis demonstrating that compliance with the development standard would physically preclude construction of the project, as the statute requires.

The record contains no evaluation of alternative building layouts, redistribution of floor area, revised unit configurations, or other feasible design alternatives that would allow compliance while maintaining the project's residential density.

Instead, the findings address only project efficiency and preferred design.

Government Code § 65915 requires more.

Because the administrative record does not demonstrate physical necessity, the statutory findings supporting the waiver are not supported by substantial evidence. (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329.)

3. The Director's Findings Regarding Public Health and Safety Are Premature.

Government Code § 65915 permits limitation of a waiver where there is substantial evidence of a specific adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.

The administrative record identifies several issues requiring additional engineering review before construction may proceed.

Reason for Appeal by Santa Rita Trust 8/3/26 Re: File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 2 Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 15 ends

The Final Public Works memorandum requires further geotechnical investigation, grading review, retaining wall analysis, drainage design, stormwater review, and foundation recommendations before grading permits or Public Works clearance may be issued.

Santa Rita Trust advised the City that excavation would occur immediately adjacent to its existing commercial building and requested project-specific measures addressing structural protection, vibration, settlement, drainage, retaining walls, and construction impacts. Those concerns were reiterated during both the written comment process and the Director's public hearing.

Despite receiving notice of these concerns before approval, the permit does not require a project-specific Construction Protection Plan or identify engineering measures demonstrating how adjacent improvements will be protected during excavation and construction.

The issue is not whether these matters may ultimately be addressed during later permit review.

The issue is whether the Director possessed sufficient evidence to conclude that the project would avoid unacceptable impacts to neighboring properties when the Site Development Permit was approved.

The administrative record does not support that conclusion.

4. The Director's Traffic Safety Findings Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The Director found that the project provides safe vehicle and pedestrian access.

The approved project includes 276 residential units, 217 parking spaces, mechanical parking systems, loading operations, rideshare activity, deliveries, and driveway access immediately adjacent to an existing commercial property driveway access The Final Public Works memorandum relies upon Assembly Bill 130 to exempt the project from CEQA transportation analysis while simultaneously requiring operational measures relating to garage access, vehicle stacking, warning devices, grading, and future engineering review before permits may be issued.

Santa Rita Trust submitted written comments and public testimony identifying concerns regarding driveway conflicts, sight distance, construction traffic, access, and traffic flow adjacent to its commercial operations before the Director acted.

Although those concerns were raised during the prior approval process, the administrative record contains no engineering analysis evaluating driveway interactions, vehicle access, truck turning movements, or operational conflicts between the proposed project, and the adjacent commercial property .

Reason for Appeal by Santa Rita Trust 8/3/26 Re: File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 3 Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 16 ends

The record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the Director's finding that the project provides adequate and safe access as required by San José Municipal Code §

20.100.630.

Conclusion and Requests
This appeal does not challenge the City's housing objectives or oppose residential development on the project site.

Rather, Santa Rita Trust respectfully requests that the Planning Commission ensure that the statutory requirements governing discretionary approvals have been satisfied.

Because the Director's findings under San José Municipal Code § 20.100.630 and Government Code § 65915 are not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, the Planning Commission should reverse the approval or remand the application with instructions that the City complete the required analyses, make the findings required by law, and impose appropriate conditions or modifications at least requiring the minimum building separation on the south and east side before approving the Site Development Permit.

Reason for Appeal by Santa Rita Trust 8/3/26 Re: File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225 4 Attachment C: Permit Appeal Application

Page 17 ends

200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/planning Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

PLANNING DIVISION
Exhibit D – Permit Appeal Responses
The council memo provides a summary of the appellant comments and staff’s analysis’ of each concerned raised. This exhibit provides the complete description of each issue raised along with a more thorough analysis.

1. Appeal Comment #1: The administrative record was not complete or internally consistent prior to approval.

The appeal statement raises the following concern: the Site Development Permit was approved despite numerous unresolved inconsistencies in the administrative record.

These include conflicting project descriptions, conflicting affordable housing compliance documents, inconsistent descriptions of requested Density Bonus relief, conflicting project addresses and parcel references, unresolved Public Works documentation, changing descriptions of construction hours, conflicting descriptions of parking configurations, and differing statements concerning the project's environmental documentation and building height.

Rather than resolving these inconsistencies before making the required statutory findings, the City improperly relied on future revisions, permit conditions, and post-hoc clarifications. A permit approval must be supported by a complete and internally consistent administrative record at the time the required findings are made.

Staff Response: The project was originally submitted under the project address 313 Gifford Avenue. To help clarify and accurately depict the location and orientation of the proposed project, the site was updated to a West San Carlos address. After coordinating with the Addressing team, the project site was assigned 470 West San Carlos. During the review process, the project submittals were updated, so the project description was revised to reflect the changes. Changes to the project description during a review are common, as projects often need to modify their design to conform to development standards. A project description is typically finalized once the project is noticed for hearing.

The applicant has adjusted construction hours in response to community feedback about construction on Saturdays. The changes reduced construction hours and eliminated concrete pours on Saturdays. The staff included 43conditions of approval related to grading, stormwater, waste management, building permit requirements, fire code requirements, environmental mitigation, and vibration monitoring requirements that need to be complete prior to obtaining issuance of a building permitting stage it. These conditions of approval are standard as final refinements of the project to ensure it meets Fire and Building Code requirements. The applicant needs to satisfy these conditions to Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 1
September 23, 2026 Page 2 of 13
move forward to obtaining a construction permit from the city.

The team received a final memo from the Housing Department on June 18, 2026. The final memo noted the Housing Department’s requirements and conditions of approval for the project. The Public Works team also issued a final memo on July 9, 2026, with their conditions of approval. These items would need to be addressed at the Building Permit stage and when completing their Grading Permit.

On environmental determination made by staff, the project qualified under AB 130 as it met the qualifying criteria as detailed in the environmental resolution attached to this memo. This analysis is substantial evidence supporting the City’s determination that the project qualifies statutory exemption under AB 130. It should be noted that building height calculations is not a qualifying criterion for AB 130. Rather, the height determines which labor standards apply to qualifying projects.

The height of the building when the project was originally reviewed was measured to the tallest point of the building, which was the top of the parapet of the building. Later brought to staff’s attention, the building was measured using the definition of height under Section 20.200.510, which notes that “height” for a structure is determined by the vertical distance between the top surface and the “grade” immediately below it. In this case, the height measured from the grade to the flat roof which is the top surface of the building. is 84 feet 10 inches, meeting the 85-foot requirement.

Lastly, the requested five Density Bonus waivers were included in the permit which is attached to this memo and included in the final plan set approved for the project. Each waiver is supported by a written justification demonstrating that application of the development standard would preclude development of the Project as proposed. The applicant also submitted 45 pages of site plans showing the dimensions of the Project in minute detail. The justifications and site plan together constitute substantial evidence to support the waiver grants.

2. Appeal Comment #2: The Density Bonus Findings Mis-state the Base Density and Bonus Calculation
The project proposes 276 units, including 14 very-low-income units. The findings, however, improperly analyze a theoretical maximum density of 714 units and a 143-unit density bonus, even though the applicant does not propose any bonus units. The findings must accurately identify the project proposed and the statutory relief requested.

Staff Response: The project includes an application pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for very low-income households. The Downtown General Plan land use designation allows residential density at 800 dwelling units per acre, equivalent to 714 base units. Pursuant Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 2
September 23, 2026 Page 3 of 13
to Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) and Government Code Section 65915(v)(1)(B), the project is eligible for a 20% density bonus, or additional or additional units. The project proposes includes 276 units and will not use the bonus to provide additional units. Per the courts in 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 clarified that Density Bonus Law waivers apply to the project as designed. In other words, when a project qualifies under the Density Bonus Law, a city may not apply any development standards that physically preclude development of the project as proposed by the developer at the density allowed. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has notified various local agencies that they cannot require a qualified project to be redesigned to avoid the need for a waiver. The city must consider the project as proposed, inclusive of any requested concessions or waivers.

Staff acknowledge that the permit granted by the director did include some error in the initial calculation of the number of additional units the project would be eligible to receive. However, the project did not elect to increase their unit count from their proposal this error has now been corrected. The miscalculations from staff do not impact on the overall project. Since the project qualifies for Density Bonus Law, they are awarded unlimited waivers, and the project is not required to supplement the administrative record to support the waiver grants beyond what was previously provided.

3. Appeal Comment #3: The permit fails to identify the statutory basis for each requested deviation.

The administrative record inconsistently characterizes requested project modifications as Density Bonus waivers, SB 330 protections, Downtown Design Guidelines Exceptions, or non-applicable items. The permit alternatively states that the applicant requested one concession, no concessions, fourteen waivers, and five waivers. The Hearing Officer approved the project without identifying the legal basis for each requested deviation or making the findings specific to each statutory mechanism.

The administrative record should clearly identify which requested deviations are authorized under Government Code Section 65915, which are protected by SB 330, which constitute Downtown Design Guideline exceptions, and which require independent discretionary findings.

Staff Response: During the Director’s, it was brought to staff’s attention that there were some typos in the permit language that needed clarity. Prior to the permit being finalized after the Director’s hearing, staff corrected the typos and errors in the permit to clearly note that the project is not requesting any concessions and that there will be five Density Waivers granted to the project. The waivers as noted on the final permit resolution notes the development standards being waived and which document the Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 3
September 23, 2026 Page 4 of 13
development standard originates from.

If any development standard would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density and with the granted concessions/incentives, the Applicant may request that those standards be waived or reduced. The waiver or reduction of a development standard does not count as an incentive, and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted.

The waiver or modification of Development Standard must be granted if it would not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health or safety or the physical environment or on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the Housing Development unaffordable to households of Low and Moderate Income. For this Subsection, "specific adverse impact " means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the Housing Development was deemed complete.

4. Appeal Comment #4: The record lacks substantial evidence supporting the required density bonus waiver findings
The appellant cites that Government Code section 65915 requires substantial evidence demonstrating that each waived development standard would physically preclude construction of the project at the permitted density.

The applicant repeatedly and improperly equates physical preclusion with:
• Loss of units;
• Reduce unit size;
• Reduce design efficiency;
• Reduced residential floor area; or
• The necessity to redesign the project.

These assertions do not, stand alone, constitute substantial evidence of physical preclusion. None of these statements demonstrates that compliance with the applicable development standard would physically prevent construction of the project at the density otherwise permitted under the Density Bonus Lw. The waiver exhibit contains conclusory statements rather than project-specific architectural, engineering, or quantitative analyses. Furthermore, oral testimony at the Director’s Hearing summarized requested waivers but provided no additional factual analysis to cure these written evidentiary deficiencies, SJMC 20.90.120
Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 4
September 23, 2026 Page 5 of 13

Staff Response: The applicant requested five waivers and provided written justification demonstrating that the application of the development standard would preclude the development of the Project as proposed. The applicant also submitted a plan set of site plans showing the project's dimensions in detail. The justification and site plan, together, constitute more than enough substantial evidence to support the requested waivers.

The state law places the burden on the city that if they deny a waiver request, it must be based on the finding that it will result in a “specific, adverse impact” on health or safety or a historical resource, or in contravention of state law.

Further, a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete as noted on Section 65589.5. Per the courts in 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 clarified that Density Bonus Law waivers apply to the project as designed. Staff did not identify any impact on public health and safety from the granting of the requested waivers.

5. Appeal Comment #5: Stepback and massing findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.

The record contains no substantial evidence demonstrating that neighborhood transition standards, skyline-level massing requirements, or step back plan requirements physically preclude construction of the project. The record lacks alternative massing studies, building-envelope analyses. Architectural alternatives, or demonstrating that neighborhood transition standards, skyline-level massing requirements, or step-back quantitative evaluations demonstrating that comparable residential density could not be achieved while complying with neighborhood transition standards. Instead, the record assumes that any reduction in efficiency or residential floor are necessarily constitutes physical preclusion, an assumption not supported by substantial evidence.

Staff Response: As mentioned above, under State Density Bonus Law, a city is precluded from applying any development standard to a project if it will physically preclude development at the density and with the concessions permitted by Density Bonus Law. This preclusion applies whether the applicant requests a waiver for that standard or not.

Regarding the stepback plane requirement, per the courts in 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 clarified that Density Bonus Law waivers apply to the project as designed. In other words, when a project qualifies under the Density Bonus Law, a city Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 5
September 23, 2026 Page 6 of 13
may not apply any development standards that physically preclude development of the project as proposed by the developer at the density allowed. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has notified various local agencies that they cannot require qualified projects to be redesigned to avoid the need for a waiver.

The city must consider the project as proposed, inclusive of any requested concessions or waivers.

6. Appeal Comment #6: Permit findings improperly rely upon future revisions rather than present compliance.

The permit repeatedly relies upon future revisions to project documents and conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements. These include unresolved design revisions, Public Work revisions, service-location changes, environmental documentation, and other project details that remained subject to future modifications after permit approval. Required findings must be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating present compliance at the time of decision, not anticipated future revisions.

Staff Response: The City properly imposed conditions of approval on the Site Development Permit that the Applicant must satisfy prior to receipt of building permits for the Project. It is a legally acceptable and highly common practice to subject a discretionary entitlement to conditions of approval, particularly about a project’s compliance with detailed engineering or safety standards (e.g., building, electrical, plumbing codes), utility requirements, or public improvements. That the Director imposed these common conditions of approval on the Project does not evidence that material issues were unresolved at the time of approval.

7. Appeal Comment #7: Design Conformance Findings are unsupported and premature.

The permit concludes that the project complies with the Downtown Design Guidelines while simultaneously requiring future revision to architectural materials, balcony treatments, columns, and other design elements. Similarly, loading, waste management, parking, sidewalk, street-tree, sewer, and service-location issues remained unresolved at the time of approval. The Director therefore approved a project before present compliance with applicable design findings was demonstrated.

Staff Response: The applicant committed to revising the project to include the additional architectural changes noted above to the plan set. These changes were not reflected on the final plan set submitted to staff. Staff added a condition of approval requiring that, before the City issues the building permit for this project, the changes be reflected on the plan set.

As previously mentioned in comment #6, it is a legally permissible and widely practiced Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 6
September 23, 2026 Page 7 of 13
approach to subject a discretionary entitlement to conditions of approval, particularly regarding a project’s compliance with detailed engineering or safety standards (e.g., building, electrical, and plumbing codes), utility requirements, or public improvements.

That the Director imposed these common conditions of approval on the Project does not evidence that material issues were unresolved at the time of approval. These conditions would be applied at appropriate phases of the project such as prior to building permit issuance or construction, thus ensuring compliance with City standards and requirements.

8. Appeal Comment #8: The Record Contains Materially Inconsistent building height determinations
The administrative record contains multiple building-height determinations that changed throughout project review. Staff reports identify one height, while subsequent submissions and testimony describe a different measurement methodology and resulting height. Because building height directly impacts the City’s statutory analysis under Assembly Bill 130 and local development standards, the City was required to reconcile these differing measurements, identify the governing methodology, and correct the written findings prior to permit approval.

Staff Response: Under the provisions of AB130, labor standards apply to projects that have a building height of 85 feet or greater. AB130 provides the criteria of over 85 feet in height but does not establish a definition for the measurement methodology of a building. The appropriate technical measurement is the California Building Code section 202 definition of building height: the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. To align with State law, the city defaulted to the California Building Code for how the height of the building was determined. In this case, the height measured from the grade to the flat roof which is the top surface of the building is 84 feet 10 inches, below the 85-foot height trigger for labor standards under AB 130.

9. Appeal Comment #9: Public Works findings rely upon unresolved and deferralbased issues.

The appellant notes that the permit contains unresolved inconsistencies concerning loading facilities, parking dimensions, trash staging, sidewalk configuration, street trees, sanitary sewer capacity, and transportation analysis. Rather than resolving these issues prior to approval, the City deferred them to post-approval review or future permit conditions. These unresolved issues further demonstrate that material aspects of project compliance remained under review at the time the required findings were made.

Staff Response: The public works team has issued a final memo for the project on July 9, 2026. Staff imposed conditions of approval on the Site Development Permit that Applicant must satisfy prior to receipt of building permits for the Project. It is a legally acceptable and highly common practice to subject a discretionary entitlement to conditions of approval, particularly about a project’s compliance with detailed Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 7
September 23, 2026 Page 8 of 13
engineering or safety standards (e.g., building, electrical, plumbing codes), utility requirements, or public improvements. That the Director imposed these common conditions of approval on the Project does not evidence that material issues were unresolved at the time of approval.

10.Appeal Comment #10: The permit relies upon a defective and separately appealed environmental determination.

The appellant notes that the permit incorporates the City’s AB 130 environmental determination, which is separately appealed and incorporated herein by reference. The permit further relies upon environmental documentation that evolved continuously during review—including reliance on an outdated soil management plan prepared for a prior project, deferred environmental oversight, and conditional measure to address site contamination. Approval of the SDP prior to securing a legally sufficient, final environmental determination constitutes procedural error.

Staff Response: For a project to be recommended for approval, it must meet condition

20.100.630.A.3 under the findings section for a Site Development permit. The project demonstrated conformance with the requirements of the permit as analyzed under the environmental review team's resolution which is attached to this memo as Exhibit A.

11.Appeal Comment #11: Reference to nearby Aquino Project.

The project in question is on a much narrower street with different characteristics, taking this project and copying it here does not conform with the design guidelines or best practices. It is entirely inconsistent, incompatible and lacks any aesthetic harmony with historic homes along Gifford.

Staff Response: The project is not near historic homes as noted in the Historic Resources Inventory map located on the City’s website. The Historic Preservation Officer was also consulted during the initial review of the project and confirmed that no historic properties were adjacent to the project site. Thus, the project was not required to consider incorporating elements from the historic homes into the design under the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines.

Under state law, this Housing project is only subject to objective design standards, some of which were waived under State Density Bonus Law. The proposal was reviewed in accordance with the San Jose General Plan, San Jose Municipal Code, Council policies, Downtown Design Guidelines and California Environmental Quality Act. More detail is provided under Exhibit E for the findings for the categories mentioned above.

12.Appeal Comment #12: Saturday Work
The project excludes concrete pours on Saturday. Please also include ground Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 8
September 23, 2026 Page 9 of 13
excavation and any other soil work on the list of excluded items to be performed on Saturdays.

Staff Response: The applicant has stated they requested extended construction hours to reduce the overall construction time for this site. The project is subject to standard environmental permit conditions related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise to reduce and mitigate the temporary impacts of construction on surrounding properties

13.Appeal Comment #13: The record does not support the Director’s fire safety findings.

Before approving the Site Development Permit, the Director was required by San Jose Municipal Code 20.100.630 to find that the project would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or adversely affect surrounding properties. The administrative record does not support those findings.

The applicant’s Fire Variance Application acknowledges that portion of the proposed building exceeds the California Fire Code’s standards fire apparatus access requirements by locating exterior walls approximately 210 feet from fire apparatus access roads and eliminating the customary six-foot perimeter access path along the south and east property lines. The applicant therefore requested a Fire Department variance and proposed enhanced sprinkler protection as an alternative means of compliance.

The variance request is significant because it confirms that the approved design does not satisfy the standard fire access requirements without discretionary relief. Consistent with that unresolved issue, the approved permit defers compliance with applicable Fire Code requirements until the Building Permit stage rather than demonstrating that the requirement access issues had been resolved before discretionary approval.

Santa Rita Trust raised these concerns through written comments and public testimony requesting clarification regarding fire access, building separation, and life-safety measures. Those concerns remained unresolved when the Director approves of the Site Development Permit.

The question before the Planning Commission is not whether the project may ultimately comply with the California Fire Code. Rather, it is whether the Director has an adequate evidentiary basis to make the findings required by San Jose Municipal Code 20.100.630 at the time of approval. Because the record demonstrates that the project required a discretionary Fire Department variance while deferring resolution of crucial fire access issues to future potential review, the Director’s findings regarding public safety and impacts on surrounding properties and not supported by the administrative record.

Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 9
September 23, 2026 Page 10 of 13
Staff comments: The Fire Department's review of 470 W San Carlos was limited to site review during the planning phase to determine whether the building was possible on a high-level. The final design of the building will need to conform with all the applicable codes. Fire review was limited to verifying compliance of the project to Chapter 5, Appendix B, Appendix C, and Appendix D of the 2025 California Fire Code (CFC) with City of San Jose Amendments. Compliance with all other applicable fire and building codes and standards relating to fire and panic safety are to be verified by the Fire Department during the Building Permit process. The concern raised falls partially under the scope of the Fire review of the Planning phase, and partially under the scope of the building phase.

The proximity to the property line was reviewed specifically for Fire Access. In San Jose, a six-foot-wide unobstructed access route is required with all portions of the 1st story of the building to be within 150 feet of the Fire Apparatus Access Road. This is in accordance with 2025 CFC section 503.1.1. The proposed building is deficient in that not all portions of the building are within 150 feet, and some portions are at the lot line. A deficiency like this is common in San Jose and is expected to be mitigated with additional fire safety features through a Fire Variance. The specifics of this variance and its mitigations have not been negotiated yet and will be addressed during the Building Plan Check stage. Any mitigation will need to be reviewed and engineered to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. An approved variance will be required prior to the issuing of a Building Permit.

The proximity to the property line was not reviewed for construction details during this phase. These items are not part of the scope of the site review and will be analyzed during the Building Plan Check by both the Building Department and the Fire Department. The 2025 CBC provides code requirements regarding the fire rating of walls and number of openings permitted based on the construction type, occupancy (use), and proximity to other buildings and property lines. Examples of the code that will be used to verify these can be found in CBC Table 705.5 (Fire-resistance rating requirements for exterior walls based on fire separation distance) and Table 705.9 (Maximum area of exterior wall openings based on fire separation distances and degree of opening protection). There are additional code requirements that will affect the construction details of this building due to the zero-lot line and the codes provided were not meant to be an exhaustive list.

14.Appeal Comment #14: The Density Bonus Waiver findings do not satisfy government code 65915.

Government Code 65915 authorizes a waiver only where application of a development standard would physically preclude construction of the development at the permitted density.

Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 10
September 23, 2026 Page 11 of 13
The Director concluded that the requested waiver was justified because compliance with the Downtown Design Standards would reduce unit efficiency and eliminate approximately eight residential units as designed.

However, the administrative record contains no analysis demonstrating that compliance with development standard would preclude construction of the project, as the statute requires.

The record contains no evaluation of alternative building layouts, redistribution of floor area revised unit configurations, or other feasible design alternatives that would allow compliance while maintaining the project’s residential density.

Instead, the findings address only project efficiency and preferred design.

Government Code 65915 requires more.

Because the administrative record does not demonstrate physical necessity, the statutory findings supporting the waiver are not supported by substantial evidence. (Willmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Ca; App. 4th 1329.) Staff Comments: As mentioned above under Comment # XX, under State Density Bonus Law a city is precluded from applying any development standard to a project if it will physically preclude development at the density and with the concessions permitted by Density Bonus Law. This preclusion applies whether the applicant requests a waiver for that standard or not.

The applicant’s request for five waivers is supported by a written justification demonstrating that application of the development standard would preclude development of the project as proposed. The applicant also submitted 45 pages of site plans showing the dimensions of the project in minute detail. The justifications and site plan together constitute more than enough substantial evidence to support the waivers.

They are based on the geometry of the project with respect to each development standard. The city may only deny a waiver request on the basis that it will result in a “specific, adverse impact” on health or safety or a historical resource or is contrary to state law. No such evidence exists in the record to support such findings.

15.Appeal Comment # 15: The Director’s Findings regarding Public Health and Safety are Premature.

Government section code 65915 permits limitation of waivers where there is substantial evidence of a specific adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. The administrative record identifies several issues requiring additional engineering review before construction may proceed.

The Final Public Works memorandum requires further geotechnical investigation, Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 11
September 23, 2026 Page 12 of 13
grading review, retaining wall analysis, drainage design, stormwater review, and foundation recommendations before grading permits or Public Works clearance may be issued.

Santa Rita Trust advised the city that excavation would occur immediately adjacent to its existing commercial building and requested project-specific measures addressing structural protection, vibration, settlement, drainage, retaining walls, and construction impacts. Those concerns were reiterated during both the written comment process and the Director’s public hearing.

Despite receiving notice of these concerns before approval, the permit does not require a project-specific Construction Protection Plan or identify engineering measures demonstrating how adjacent improvement will be protected during excavation and construction.

The issue is not whether these matters may ultimately be addressed during later permit review. The issue is whether the Director possessed sufficient evidence to conclude that the project would avoid unacceptable impacts to neighboring properties when the Site Development Permit was approved.

Staff Comments: The appellant confuses the City’s burden for granting a waiver request with its burden for denying one. Under State Density Bonus Law, a city is not required to affirmatively find that a waiver will not result in a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety. Rather, if it chooses to deny a waiver request, it must find that the waiver would result in a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or it is contrary to state or federal law. Further, a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety is defined as “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” The administrative record indicates the project would not result in a specific, adverse impact on public safety or health that would require denial of a specific waiver or of the project, and the appeal does not provide any information contrary to staff’s findings.

16.Appeal Comment #16: The Director’s traffic safety findings are not supported by substantial Evidence.

The Director found that the project provides safe vehicle and pedestrian access. The approved project includes 276 residential units, 217 parking spaces, mechanical parking systems, loading operations, rideshare activity, deliveries, and driveway access immediately adjacent to existing commercial property driveway access.

The final Public Works memorandum relies upon Assembly Bill 130 to exempt the project from CEQA transportation analysis while simultaneously requiring operational measures related to garage access, vehicle stacking, warning devices, grading, and Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 12
September 23, 2026 Page 13 of 13
future engineering review before permits may be issued Santa Rita Trust submitted written comments and public testimony identifying concerns regarding driveway conflicts, sight distance, construction traffic, access, and traffic flow adjacent to its commercial operations before the Director acted.

The record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the Director’s finding that the project provides adequate and safe access as required by San Jose Municipal Code

20.100.630.

Staff Comments: Due to the project’s eligibility for a state statutory exemption under state law, AB 130, the project is exempt from environmental review about transportation impacts based on VMT. The City of San Jose Council Policy 5-1 established a framework requirement of a CEQA Transportation Analysis for VMT impacts and a supplemental requirement of a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) for effects on multimodal transportation, access, circulation, and related safety elements for consistency to the General Plan. Under state law AB 130, the project is ministerial exempt from CEQA, which overrides the City’s requirements under Council Policy 5-1.

Therefore, there is no LTA requirement for the project.

There are numerous conditions of approval for the Site Development Permit that address access and pedestrian safety, including among others, development of a Transportation Demand Management plan to the satisfaction of the San Jose Department of Transportation; monetary contributions to pedestrian, vehicle, and bicycle safety projects along W. San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue; and installation of audible ad visual warning signs at the West San Carlos Street entrance /exit to warn pedestrians of approaching vehicles. The project is held to objective standards and policies that apply to other similar land use developments within the same zone. In this instance, Since the project is within the Diridon Specific Area Plan it is subject to the Diridon Station Area Infrastructure Impact and other standard conditions.

Attachment D: Permit Appeal Responses Page 13
CITYOF � Attachment E: Environmental Appeal Application PLANNING DIVISION 05/20/2024 SUBJECT TO CHANGE

SANJOSE
«[email protected] APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement DETERMINATION APP LICATION
Per Municipal Code 21.07.040, the San Jose City Council will hear appeals to the environmental determination
made by City staff at a project's public hearing. This
application form must be completed as instructed
below to facilitate the appeal.

WHO MAY APPEAL
Any person may file.

DEADLINE
File this completed application by no later than 5:00 p.m. of the third business day following the day of the
public hearing that relied upon the Environmental
Determination.

FEES & PROCESS
View the current fee for an Environmental Determination Appeal on the Table of Applications at www.sanjoseca.
gov/PlanningApplications . The fees vary depending on
whether you are a project applicant or non-applicant.

HOW TO SUBMIT - 2 OPTIONS
• In-Person (no appointment required): Before the
filing deadline stated above, come to the Planning
Offices, third floor of City Hall {200 E. Santa Clara
Street, San Jose) to submit the application. You may
pay the appeal fee in-person or staff may email you
an invoice which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.
• Email: Before the filing deadline stated above, email the completed application and any attachments to
[email protected]. If the appeal is timely
and complete, staff will email you an invoice for the
appeal fee, which must be paid within 14 calendar
days of the invoice date for the appeal to be valid.

WHAT TO SUBMIT
□ This application form, completed and signed. You
must state with specificity the reasons that the
Environmental Determination should be found not
to be complete or not to have been prepared in
compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

Only appeals that are based on issues that were raised
at the public hearing or in writing prior to the public hearing will be considered.

City staff will set a public hearing date before the City Council; the appeal item will be placed on the agenda.

Staff will also prepare a recommendation of action to
the City Council.

FOR QUESTIONS
Speak with a City Planner at 408-535-3555; see phone
service hours at www.sanjoseca.gov/Planning.

Para informacion en espanol, comuniquese con un
Planificador de la ciudad al 408-793-4100.
e duoc ho tro, noi chuyen voi Nguroi lap ke hoach
thanh pho tai 408-793-4174.
continued>
PLANNING DIVISION 408-535-3555 SAN JOSE CITY HALL, 200 E. SANTA CLARA ST., SAN JOSE, CA 95113 WWW.SANJOSECA.GOV/PLANNING

Page 1 ends

APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION APPLICATION PAGE 2 OF 2 Please download and save this computer-fillable form to your computer. Follow instructions for Digital Forms.

The undersigned respectfully requests an appeal for the following environmental determination. ϭ͘ Z^KEͬ^ &KZ WW>͗ If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet.

Ϯ͘ WZ^KE &/>/E' WW>
WZ/Ed ED͗
D/>/E' Z^^͗
D/>͗ W,KE͗
භ ^/'EdhZ K& WZ^KE &/>/E' d, WW> d͗ ΀DDͬͬzzzz΁ For electronic submittal or virtual appointments, a ŝŐŝƚĂů / ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ is required.

For in-person appointments, an original ink signature is required. ϯ͘ KEdd WZ^KE /& /&&ZEd &ZKD WZ^KE &/>/E' WW> WZ/Ed ED͗
D/>/E' Z^^͗
D/>͗ W,KE͗
W>EE/E' /s/^/KE ϰϬϴͳϱϯϱͳϯϱϱϱ ^E :K^ /dz ,>>͕ ϮϬϬ ͘ ^Ed >Z ^d͕͘ ^E :K^͕  ϵϱϭϭϯ ttt͘^E:K^͘'KsͬW>EE/E' This appeal concerns the environmental determination for "The Gifford" / Delmas Senior Living, File Nos. H25-039 and ER25-225, located at 470 West San Carlos Street, also identified in the record as 462–470 West San Carlos Street / 321–329 Gifford Avenue, APN 264-20-133. Appellant appeals the City's determination that the Project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (Assembly Bill 130). The appeal challenges the City's conclusion that the Project satisfies the statutory requirements for the AB 130 exemption, the adequacy of the evidence supporting that determination, the reliance on unresolved or future environmental documentation and conditions of approval, and material inconsistencies in the administrative record concerning the environmental basis for project approval. See the attached Statement of Reasons for Appeal of Environmental Determination and the S+NI letters dated July 3 and July 13, 2026, which are incorporated by reference.

Bert Weaver
07/24/2026
Attachment E: Environmental Appeal Application

Page 2 ends

1 STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL

DETERMINATION
Project: The GiƯord – File Nos. H25-039 and ER25-225
Appellant appeals the City's determination that the Project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66 (Assembly Bill 130).

This appeal does not challenge the Legislature's enactment of Assembly Bill 130 or the availability of the statutory exemption where its requirements have been satisfied. Rather, it challenges whether the City complied with the procedural and evidentiary requirements necessary to invoke the exemption by establishing, through substantial evidence contained in a complete and internally consistent administrative record, that the Project satisfied the statutory prerequisites before approval.

The central issue presented by this appeal is not whether Assembly Bill 130 may apply to this Project, but whether the City demonstrated that it did apply before approving the Project. The administrative record reflects an environmental basis for approval that evolved throughout project review while material aspects of the Project and supporting environmental documentation remained unresolved or internally inconsistent.

1. The Administrative Record Does Not Demonstrate That the Project Satisfied the Requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.

Before invoking the Assembly Bill 130 exemption, the City was required to determine that the Project satisfied all statutory requirements applicable to the exemption.

Rather than identifying the evidence supporting each required finding, the administrative record reflects changing project documentation, diƯering environmental analyses, unresolved environmental documentation of dirt stored on-site from nearby housing project, and permit conditions without clearly distinguishing which statutory requirements had already been satisfied and which obligations remained to be completed.

The City therefore failed to establish a complete and internally consistent record supporting its determination that the Project qualified for the exemption.

2. The City's Environmental Basis for Approval Changed Throughout Project Review Without Being Reconciled.

The City's environmental rationale evolved repeatedly during project review. At various times, the administrative record relied upon:

Attachment E: Environmental Appeal Application

Page 3 ends

2 ξ The December 2020 Addendum;
ξ The December 23, 2025 environmental memorandum;
ξ The Downtown Strategy 2040 Environmental Impact Report; ξ A proposed Local Transportation Analysis;
ξ Future revisions to environmental documentation; and
ξ Ultimately, the Assembly Bill 130 statutory exemption.

The final approval does not explain how these diƯering environmental analyses relate to one another or identify the evidence supporting the City's final determination. Instead, the administrative record reflects a continuously evolving environmental basis for approval rather than one coherent environmental determination supported by substantial evidence.

3. To the Extent the City Continues to Rely Upon Earlier Environmental Documents, Those Documents Do Not Analyze the Approved Project.

The December 2020 Addendum evaluated a six-story commercial senior living facility. The Project approved by the Director is an eight-story, 276-unit apartment building.

The approved Project diƯers materially with respect to:
ξ Land use;
ξ Occupancy;
ξ Building height;
ξ Unit count;
ξ Floor area;
ξ Parking configuration;
ξ Excavation;
ξ Transportation characteristics; and
ξ Construction activities.

To the extent the City continues to rely upon the earlier environmental documentation, the record does not explain why those analyses remain applicable to the Project ultimately approved.

4. The Administrative Record Contains Materially DiƯerent Building Height Determinations.

The administrative record contains multiple building-height calculations developed through diƯering measurement methodologies during project review.

Attachment E: Environmental Appeal Application

Page 4 ends

3 Those diƯering calculations were never reconciled before approval. The City should identify the governing methodology, explain the diƯering calculations contained in the record, and clearly identify the factual basis supporting its final determination.

5. The Administrative Record Does Not Explain the Removal of the Local Transportation Analysis.

Earlier City review documents identified a Local Transportation Analysis for the Project. The final approval removed that requirement.
ξ The administrative record does not explain:
ξ Why the analysis was no longer required;
ξ Whether the removal resulted from Assembly Bill 130;
ξ Whether it resulted from another legal determination; or ξ Whether any transportation review remained independently required.

Without that explanation, the administrative record does not provide a coherent basis for the City's final environmental determination.

6. The Administrative Record Should Clearly Demonstrate Compliance With Every Applicable Requirement of Assembly Bill 130.

If the City continues to rely upon Public Resources Code section 21080.66, the administrative record should clearly identify the evidence supporting each applicable statutory requirement, including project eligibility, site eligibility, general plan and zoning consistency, tribal consultation requirements, environmental assessment requirements, hazardous-materials requirements, applicable labor provisions, and any other statutory prerequisite upon which the exemption depends.

REQUESTED RELIEF
Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council grant the appeal, set aside the Assembly Bill 130 exemption determination, and remand the Project for further proceedings.

Before reconsidering the Project, the City should:

1. Prepare one complete and internally consistent environmental determination identifying the environmental documents upon which it relies;

2. Reconcile the changing environmental analyses contained throughout the administrative record;
Attachment E: Environmental Appeal Application

Page 5 ends

4 3. Identify the evidence supporting each finding required by Public Resources Code section 21080.66;

4. Clarify the environmental documentation applicable to the stored dirt from the nearby housing project;

5. Resolve the diƯering building-height determinations and transportation review issues reflected in the administrative record; and

6. Conduct any additional environmental review required if the City cannot establish that the Project qualifies for the Assembly Bill 130 exemption.

Attachment E: Environmental Appeal Application

Page 6 ends

CITY OF am,
SAN JOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
July 24, 2026
Matt Bernardis
Urban Catalyst
99 S Almaden Boulevard, Ste 600
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Matt Bernardis:

RE: Site Development Permit, File No. H25-039 & ER25-225, located on the southwest intersection of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue, (462-470 West San Carlos Street and 321-329 Gifford Avenue, APN: 264-20-133).

The enclosed is your copy of the Planning Director's action on this Site Development Permit.

This permit may contain one or more conditions, such as revised plans, which must be met within a specific deadline. If conditions are not met the permit will automatically expire. Please read your permit carefully!
The Planning Director's action taken on this permit or any of the conditions of this permit may be appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission by filing a Notice of Appeal and a $15,382.00 fee. The appeal must be submitted in person or by e-mail at [email protected] and presented on the Notice of Appeal form available from this department on or before 5:00 p.m, August 3, 2026. If you have any questions, please contact the Project Manager, Jacqueline Guerrero (408) 535-8235or by e-mail at jacqueline.guerrero @sanjoseca.gov.

Sincerely,
4 Sys VY
Sylvia Do Fong,
Deputy
cc: Delmas Senior PropCo LLC
470 West San Carlos
San Jose, CA 95126
Enclosures
JG:hg
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 37 FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing

Page 1 ends

CITY OF am,
SAN JOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
July 24, 2026
Matt Bernardis
Urban Catalyst
99 S Almaden Boulevard, Ste 600
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Matt Bernardis:

The enclosed is your copy of the Planning Director's action on this Site Development Permit.

Page 1 ends

CITY OF am,
SAN JOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
July 24, 2026
Matt Bernardis
Urban Catalyst
99 S Almaden Boulevard, Ste 600
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Matt Bernardis:

The enclosed is your copy of the Planning Director's action on this Site Development Permit.

Page 1 ends

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
CITYOF�
SANJOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
Matt Bernardis
Urban Catalyst
99 S Almaden Boulevard, Ste 600
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Matt Bernardis:

CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
July 24, 2026
RE: Site Development Permit, File No. H25-039 & ER25-225, located on the southwest intersection of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue, (462-470 West San Carlos Street and 321-329 Gifford Avenue, APN: 264-20-133).

The enclosed is your copy of the Planning Director's action on this Site Development Permit.

Sincerely,
cc: Delmas Senior PropCo LLC
470 West San Carlos
San Jose, CA 95126
Enclosures
JG:hg
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3FL San Jose, CA 95113

Page 1 ends

Sylvia Do Fong,
Deputy
tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca. gov/pbce

CITY OF FOUN
SAN JOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FILE NO.

LOCATION OF PROPERTY

ZONING DISTRICT

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

PROPOSED USE

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

OWNER ADDRESS

APPLICANT ADDRESS

FACTS AND FINDINGS
H25-039 & ER25-225
Southwest intersection of West San Carlos Street
and Gifford Avenue, (462-470 West San Carlos
Street and 321-329 Gifford Avenue, APN: 264-20-
133)
DC Downtown Primary Commercial Zoning District
Downtown
Site Development Permit to allow an eight-story
residential building with 276 dwelling units, with five percent affordable units restricted to very-lowincome, subject to the state Density Bonus Law, underground parking, and extended construction
hours from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturdays on an
approximately 0.89-gross-acre vacant site.

Statutorily Exempt Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.66 (Assembly Bill 130)
Delmas Senior PropCo LLC
470 West San Carlos
San Jose, CA 95126
Matt Bernardis
Urban Catalyst
99 S Almaden Boulevard, Ste 600
San Jose, CA 95113
The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement determines, concludes, and finds as follows for this proposed project:

1. Project Description.

The project consists of a Site Development Permit to allow the construction of an eight-story residential building with 276 dwelling units, with five percent affordable units restricted to very-lowincome, subject to the state Density Bonus Law, underground parking, on an approximately 0.89- gross-acre vacant site.

The applicant submitted a concurrent application under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for very-low-income households. The project 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 37 FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 2

CITY OF FOUN
SAN JOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FILE NO.

LOCATION OF PROPERTY

ZONING DISTRICT

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

PROPOSED USE

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

OWNER ADDRESS

APPLICANT ADDRESS

1. Project Description.

The applicant submitted a concurrent application under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for very-low-income households. The project 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 37 FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 2 � Aachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing cxor � � �
SANJOSE Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR

SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FILE NO.

LOCATION OF PROPERTY

ZONING DISTRICT

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

PROPOSED USE

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

OWNER ADDRESS

APPLICANT ADDRESS

1. Project Description.

Page 2 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 2 of 29 ends

requests five waivers related to the stepback plane, skyline-level massing, balconies, ground-floor residential space, and podium-level massing.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses. The subject site, approximately 0.89 gross acre, is located at the intersection of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue, at 470 West San Carlos Street.

The site is currently vacant. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east, and south, and residential uses along the north and west property lines. Vehicle access to the site is provided along West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. There is a bus stop near the other corner of the block that the 23-bus line runs by.

Permit Findings. Permit findings with detailed analysis in the findings section. a. Site Development Permit Findings. Chapter 20.100.630 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code specifies the required findings for approval of a Site Development Permit.

1. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies; and General Plan Consistency
The subject site is designated as a Downtown on the land-use transportation diagram of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. This designation includes office, retail, service, residential, and entertainment uses in the Downtown. Redevelopment should be at very high intensities unless there is an incompatibility with other major policies within the General Plan. All development within this designation should enhance the <complete community= in downtown, support pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and increase transit ridership. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is up to 30 and the density is 800 dwelling units per acre.

Analysis: The project includes a 276-unit housing development with a density of 310 DU/AC, consistent with the General Plan designation's maximum density of 800 DU/AC. The applicant will restrict at least 14 of the 276 units to be affordable to very-low-income households, resulting in a density-increase allowance of up to 20 percent pursuant to Government Code Section 65915. The project is not opting to use the additional percentage to receive more units than allowed. More information about the Density Bonus application is available below.

The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

Major Strategy #3 - Focused Growth: The Focused Growth Major Strategy plans for new residential and commercial growth capacity in specifically identified <Growth Areas= (Urban Villages, Plan areas, Employment Areas, Downtown) while the majority of the City is not planned for additional growth or intensification. The strategy focuses new growth into areas of San José that will enable the achievement of economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and environmental stewardship goals, while supporting the development of new, attractive urban neighborhoods.

Growth Area Policy LU-2.1: Provide significanjtob and housing growth capacity within strategically identified <Growth Areas= in order to maximize use of existing or planned infrastructure (including fixed transit facilities), minimize the environmental impacts of new development, provide for more efficient delivery of City services, and foster the development of more vibrant, walkable urban settings.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 3 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 2 ends

requests five waivers related to the stepback plane, skyline-level massing, balconies, ground-floor residential space, and podium-level massing.

2. Site Description and Surrounding Uses. The subject site, approximately 0.89 gross acre, is located at the intersection of West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue, at 470 West San Carlos Street.

3. Permit Findings. Permit findings with detailed analysis in the findings section. a. Site Development Permit Findings. Chapter 20.100.630 of Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code specifies the required findings for approval of a Site Development Permit. i. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans and area development policies; and

Page 3 ends

General Plan Consistency
The subject site is designated as a Downtown on the land-use transportation diagram of the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. This designation includes office, retail, service, residential, and entertainment uses in the Downtown. Redevelopment should be at very high intensities unless there is an incompatibility with other major policies within the General Plan. All development within this designation should enhance the "complete community" in downtown, support pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and increase transit ridership. The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is up to 30 and the density is 800 dwelling units per acre.

Analysis: The project includes a 276-unit housing development with a density of 310 DU/AC, consistent with the General Plan designation's maximum density of 800 DU/AC The applicant will restrict at least 14 of the 2 7 6 units to be affordable to very-low-income households, resulting in a density-increase allowance of up to 20 percent pursuant to Government Code Section 65 915. The project is not opting to use the additional percentage to receive more units than allowed. More information about the Density Bonus application is available below.

The project is consistent with the following General Plan policies:

Major Strategy #3 - Focused Growth: The Focused Growth Major Strategy plans for new residential and commercial growth capacity in specifically identified "Growth Areas" (Urban Villages, Plan areas, Employment Areas, Downtown) while the majority of the City is not planned for additional growth or intensification. The strategy focuses new growth into areas of San Jose that will enable the achievement of economic growth, fiscal sustainability, and environmental stewardship goals, while supporting the development of new, attractive urban neighborhoods.

Growth Area PolicyLU-2.1: Provide significant job and housing growth capacity within strategically identified "Growth Areas" in order to maximize use of existing or planned infrastructure (including fixed transit facilities), minimize the environmental impacts of new development, provide for more efficient delivery of City services, and foster the development of more vibrant, walkable urban settings.
il.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 3 of 29 ends

Maximize Use of Public Transit Policy TR-3.4: Maintain and improve access to transit stops and stations for mobility-challenged population groups such as youth, the disabled, and seniors.

Housing Policy H-1.9: Facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing to meet San José9s fair share of the County9s and region9s housing needs.

Policy H-2.1: Facilitate the production of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderateincome housing by maximizing use of appropriate policies and financial resources at the federal, state, and local levels; and various other programs.

Analysis: The project will provide 276 units, with 14 units restricted to very low-income households, increasing the City9s overall housing supply. The project will add to the existing housing diversity in the surrounding neighborhood, which includes a variety of multifamily developments and single-family residential. The project is within the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP) and is approximately 0.6 miles from Diridon Station. The project would result in a high level of development on the subject site, consistent with the General Plan9s major strategy and policies that support focused growth and development near transit. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan policies above.

Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP)
The parcel for the residential units is within the Southern Zone of the DSAP, with land use specified as Downtown. The FAR of this project is 5.9 and meets the maximum 30 FAR requirement. The building height is 84 feet and 10 inches, which is consistent with the 110- foot height limit for the area. Per section 20.200.510 of the municipal code, the height of the building is the vertical distance between the top surface and the <grade= immediately below it. The project will use a waiver under the State Density Bonus law to exempt it from the requirement to provide a building stepback plane from rear shared property lines, as noted in Figure 2-4-8a.

The Site Development Permit, as approved, conforms with the Zoning Code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The subject site is in the DC Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The project is consistent with the district's use regulations pursuant to Section 20.70.100 and Table 20-140 of the San Jose Municipal Code (SJMC), as noted below.

Land Use
Multifamily dwelling units are allowed in the DC Zoning District if the project complies with the Development Standards related to residential use. The construction of the residential units will require the issuance of a Site Development permit, pursuant to Section 20.100.610.A.1.

Development Standards
Pursuant to Section 20.70.200, the following table sets forth the required development standards and the project9s proposed setbacks and height, per the submitted plans. Properties Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 4 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 3 ends

Maximize Use of Public Transit Policy TR-3.4: Maintain and improve access to transit stops and stations for mobility-challenged population groups such as youth, the disabled, and seniors.

Housing Policy H-1.9: Facilitate the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing to meet San Jose's fair share of the County's and region's housing needs.

Analysis: The project will provide 276 units, with 14 units restricted to very low-income households, increasing the City's overall housing supply. The project will add to the existing housing diversity in the surrounding neighborhood, which includes a variety of multifamily developments and single-family residential. The project is within the Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP) and is approximately 0.6 miles from Diridon Station. The project would result in a high level of development on the subject site, consistent with the General Plan's major strategy and policies that support focused growth and development near transit. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan policies above.

Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP)
The parcel for the residential units is within the Southern Zone of the DSAP, with land use specified as Downtown. The FAR of this project is 5.9 and meets the maximum 30 FAR requirement. The building height is 84 feet and 10 inches, which is consistent with the 110- foot height limit for the area. Per section 20.200.510 of the municipal code, the height of the building is the vertical distance between the top surface and the "grade" immediately below it. The project will use a waiver under the State Density Bonus law to exempt it from the requirement to provide a building stepback plane from rear shared property lines, as noted in Figure 2-4-8a.

11. The Site Development Permit, as approved, conforms with the Zoning Code and all other provisions of the San Jose Municipal Code applicable to the project; and

Page 4 ends

Zoning Ordinance Consistency
The subject site is in the DC Downtown Commercial Zoning District. The project is consistent with the district's use regulations pursuant to Section 20.70.100 and Table 20-140 of the San Jose Municipal Code (SJMC), as noted below.

Land Use
Multifamily dwelling units are allowed in the DC Zoning District if the project complies with the Development Standards related to residential use. The construction of the residential units will require the issuance of a Site Development permit, pursuant to Section 20.100.61 O.A.1.

Development Standards
Pursuant to Section 20.70.200, the following table sets forth the required development standards and the project's proposed setbacks and height, per the submitted plans. Properties File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 4 of 29 ends

located within the DC Zoning District are subject to the height limitations necessary for the safe operation of San José International Airport, which are established by the Federal Aviation Administration. Properties located within the DC Zoning District are not subject to minimum or maximum setback requirements, pursuant to SJMC Section 20.70.210. It should be noted that the DSAP height limit of 110 feet takes precedence over the Zoning Code.

Setback Area Requirement Proposed
(approximately)
Front, Fronting West San | No minimum 5 feet; Complies
Carlos Street
Front, Fronting Gifford No minimum 2 feet; Complies
Avenue
Rear, South Property line | No minimum 0 feet; Complies Rear, East property line No minimum 0 feet; Complies
Maximum Height 110 feet per DSAP 84 feet 10 inches;
complies
Transportation Demand Management (<<TDM=99) and Parking Vehicle Parking: Pursuant to SJMC Chapter 20.90, there is no minimum vehicle parking requirement, and the project provides 217 vehicle parking spaces. Based on Table 20-0250, under Section 20.90.910, the project is classified as a level one Home End Use with it providing more than 16 residential units and less than 299 residential units. The project requires a Transportation Demand Management Plan. The applicant is required to submit a final TDM plan to the satisfaction of the San Jose Department of Transportation as part of their conditions of approval.

Bicycle Parking: For residential use, the project is required to provide one bicycle space per four residential units, under Table 20-210 in Section 20.90. With 276 residential units, this calculates to 69 bicycle parking spaces.

Two-Wheeled Vehicle (Motorcycle) Parking: Per Section 20.90.350, a two-wheeled motorized vehicle parking shall be provided at 2.5% of standard vehicle parking provided.

Analysis: The project provides 217 vehicle parking spaces; therefore, six two-wheeled vehicle parking spaces are required. The project provides six motorcycle parking spaces that meet the requirement above.

Off-Street Loading Spaces: Pursuant to SJMC Section 20.70.435, multifamily use of 200 units or more but less than five hundred units shall provide two off-street loading spaces.

Pursuant to SJMC Section 20.90.420 and Section 20.90.430, each off-street loading space shall be at least 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet high and shall be accessible by driveways for ingress and egress.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 5 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 4 ends

Page 5 ends

located within the DC Zoning District are subject to the height limitations necessary for the safe operation of San Jose International Airport, which are established by the Federal Aviation Administration. Properties located within the DC Zoning District are not subject to minimum or maximum setback requirements, pursuant to SJMC Section 20.70.210. It should be noted that the DSAP height limit of 110 feet takes precedence over the Zoning Code.

Setback Area Requirement Proposed
(approximately)
Front, Fronting West San No minimum 5 feet; Complies
Carlos Street
Front, Fronting Gifford No minimum 2 feet; Complies
Avenue I
Rear, South Property line No minimum 0 feet; Complies
Rear, East property line No minimum 0 feet; Complies
Maximum Height 110 feet per DSAP 84 feet 10 inches;
complies
Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") and Parking
Vehicle Parking: Pursuant to SJMC Chapter 20.90, there is no minimum vehicle parking requirement, and the project provides 217 vehicle parking spaces. Based on Table 20-0250, under Section 20.90.910, the project is classified as a level one Home End Use with it providing more than 16 residential units and less than 299 residential units. The project requires a Transportation Demand Management Plan. The applicant is required to submit a final TDM plan to the satisfaction of the San Jose Department of Transportation as part of their conditions of approval.

Two-Wheeled Vehicle (Motorcycle) Parking: Per Section 20.90.350, a two-wheeled motorized vehicle parking shall be provided at 2.5% of standard vehicle parking provided.

Off-Street Loading Spaces: Pursuant to SJMC Section 20.70.435, multifamily use of 200 units or more but less than five hundred units shall provide two off-street loading spaces.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 5 of 29 ends

Analysis: The project provides two off-street loading spaces, meeting the required number.

The space does not meet the height requirement as the vehicle entrance is 10 feet. The loading space does not meet the 15 feet clear height as required by Section 20.70.420 of the Zoning Code. To allow twelve feet of height for the loading space, the project is conditioned to only allow Class 4 thru Class 6 delivery trucks in the parking garage loading area. The applicants will also apply for an on-street loading space along West San Carlos Street via a separate Public Works permit process.

The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals
The project is consistent with City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals. Two on-site signs have been posted at the site, facing West San Carlos Avenue and Gifford Avenue since February 6, 2026. The surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius were notified, who attended a Community Meeting held on May 4, 2026, via Zoom. Notices for a public hearing were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. Staff have been available to answer any questions from the public.

The interrelationship between the orientation, location, and elevations of proposed buildings and structures and other uses on-site are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious.

Analysis: The new multifamily residential building fronts both West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. Sidewalks along both streets provide pedestrian access to the site. The project design includes a glass mural at the street corner to emphasize the project. Blue stucco is used throughout the design to help break up the project's mass. Balconies are proposed on the north, south, and west building facades to add visual interest and keep the eye moving along the building. The project's architectural design incorporates elements consistent with the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Therefore, the multifamily building is compatible with and aesthetically harmonious with other on-site uses. The site provides vehicle and bicycle parking inside the building and on the adjacent public right-ofway, and all on-site uses are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious.

The orientation, location, and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood.

The project is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Applying these Guidelines ensures that relationships among structures and with other on-site uses are both functional and attractive. The project shares a similar design intent and architectural language with the nearby Aquino Project, approved under File No. SP20-019 and addenda. The ground-floor height is 15 feet and four inches; the adjacent building's height from the ground to the top of the ridge is 15 feet, reflecting the scale of neighborhood buildings at the podium and pedestrian levels. The project creates a welcoming pedestrian level, with residential units on the ground floor having front doors along Gifford Avenue, consistent with the residences along Gifford Avenue. The project design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as noted above.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 6 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 5 ends

Analysis: The project provides two off-street loading spaces, meeting the required number.

The space does not meet the height requirement as the vehicle entrance is IO feet. The loading space does not meet the I 5 feet clear height as required by Section 20. 70.420 of the Zoning Code. To allow twelve feet of height for the loading space, the project is conditioned to only allow Class 4 thru Class 6 delivery trucks in the parking garage loading area. The applicants will also apply for an on-street loading space along West San Carlos Street via a separate Public Works permit process.
iii. The Site Development Permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable City Council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use and Development Proposals
The project is consistent with City Council Policy 6-30: Public Outreach Policy for Pending Land Use Development Proposals. Two on-site signs have been posted at the site, facing West San Carlos Avenue and Gifford Avenue since February 6, 2026. The surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius were notified, who attended a Community Meeting held on May 4, 2026, via Zoom. Notices for a public hearing were mailed to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. Staff have been available to answer any questions from the public.
iv. The interrelationship between the orientation, location, and elevations of proposed buildings and structures and other uses on-site are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious.

Analysis: The new multifamily residential building fronts both West San Carlos Street and Gifford Avenue. Sidewalks along both streets provide pedestrian access to the site. The project design includes a glass mural at the street corner to emphasize the project. Blue stucco is used throughout the design to help break up the project's mass. Balconies are proposed on the north, south, and west building facades to add visual interest and keep the eye moving along the building. The project's architectural design incorporates elements consistent with the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines. Therefore, the multifamily building is compatible with and aesthetically harmonious with other on-site uses. The site provides vehicle and bicycle parking inside the building and on the adjacent public right-of way, and all on-site uses are mutually compatible and aesthetically harmonious. v. The orientation, location, and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood.

Page 6 ends

The project is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Applying these Guidelines ensures that relationships among structures and with other on-site uses are both functional and attractive. The project shares a similar design intent and architectural language with the nearby Aquino Project, approved under File No. SP20-019 and addenda. The ground-floor height is 15 feet and four inches; the adjacent building's height from the ground to the top of the ridge is I 5 feet, reflecting the scale of neighborhood buildings at the podium and pedestrian levels. The project creates a welcoming pedestrian level, with residential units on the ground floor having front doors along Gifford Avenue, consistent with the residences along Gifford Avenue. The project design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as noted above.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 6 of 29 ends

e Section 3.3, Standard 8a9 4 Place Active Uses along the edges of Public Space at the pedestrian level and not toward internal site spaces, unless all requirements for active Frontages on Public Spaces have been met (see Section 5.3.1.a.) Analysis: The residential lobby is currently located near the corner of Gifford Avenue and West San Carlos Street, accessible from the public sidewalk, consistent with the requirement.
e Section 3.5.1, Standard 8a9 4 Connect the primary pedestrian and bicycle building access directly to a public sidewalk, Public Open Space, or paseo, uninterrupted by a parking lot or vehicular circulation. See Section 5.5.2 Vehicle and Service Entry Design for information about Porte Cocheres and primary pedestrian entries.

Analysis: Access to the building as a pedestrian or bicyclist will be through the main lobby entrance; the project complies with this requirement. e Section 4.4.1, Standard 8b9 - Do not use strong expressions of horizontal or vertical elements that emphasize the facade more than the overall building form or structure, such as a projecting fin that does not serve a function like shading or control of the wind.

Analysis: The current stucco proposal uses blue vertical stucco stripes to break up the building's massing and create visual movement along the fagade. The building's corner at the intersection of Gifford and West San Carlos serves as a prominent visual element.
e Section 4.4.3, Standard 8a9 - At the Pedestrian Level, use elements of stone, pre-cast concrete, terra cotta, masonry, or cast stone in addition to any other materials such as metal and glass.

The project will be required to adhere to standard building and grading permit conditions.

The project is also required to adhere to standard environmental permit conditions related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise to reduce and mitigate the temporary impacts of construction on surrounding properties.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 7 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 6 ends

• Section 3.3, Standard 'a' - Place Active Uses along the edges of Public Space at the pedestrian level and not toward internal site spaces, unless all requirements for active Frontages on Public Spaces have been met (see Section 5.3.1.a.) Analysis: The residential lobby is currently located near the corner of Gifford Avenue and West San Carlos Street, accessible from the public sidewalk, consistent with the requirement.
• Section 3.5.1, Standard 'a' - Connect the primary pedestrian and bicycle building access directly to a public sidewalk, Public Open Space, or paseo, uninterrupted by a parking lot or vehicular circulation. See Section 5.5.2 Vehicle and Service Entry Design for information about Porte Cocheres and primary pedestrian entries.

Analysis: Access to the building as a pedestrian or bicyclist will be through the main lobby entrance; the project complies with this requirement. • Section 4.4.1, Standard 'b' - Do not use strong expressions of horizontal or vertical elements that emphasize the facade more than the overall building form or structure, such as a projecting fin that does not serve a function like shading or control of the wind.

Analysis: The current stucco proposal uses blue vertical stucco stripes to break up the building's massing and create visual movement along the facade. The building's corner at the intersection of Gifford and West San Carlos serves as a prominent visual element.
• Section 4.4.3, Standard 'a' - At the Pedestrian Level, use elements of stone, pre-cast concrete, terra cotta, masonry, or cast stone in addition to any other materials such as metal and glass.

Analysis: The pedestrian level uses metal and glass elements in the storefront system, as shown on sheet AP 3. 00. These materials will help create an active frontage at the pedestrian level.
vi. The environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to noise, vibration, air quality and dust, biological resources, water quality and storm water runoff, drainage, erosion, and odor, which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative effect on adjacent property or properties.

Page 7 ends

Analysis: The project is located within an already urbanized area that is served by all necessary public and private utilities. The project is residential in nature and therefore would not be a generating source for excessive noise or odor. All construction activities would be temporary, and the construction hours are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, within 500feet of residential uses. 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 with no concrete pours on Saturday.

The project will be required to adhere to standard building and grading permit conditions.

The project is also required to adhere lo standard environmental permit conditions related lo air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise to reduce and mitigate the temporary impacts of construction on surrounding properties. ae
vi
Vill.

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 7 of 29 ends

The project is subject to Public Works requirements regarding sidewalk improvements, stormwater capture and drainage, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic. Additionally, this project must comply with the City9s Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Policy 6-29), which requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include site design measures, source controls, and numerically sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges, per Public Works Final Memo dated July 09, 2026, and the project will not have an unacceptable negative effect to the surrounding environment.
. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls and fences, features to conceal outdoor activities, exterior heating, ventilating, plumbing, utility, and trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.

Analysis: The project includes both common and private open space for residents of the building. The common open space comprises a landscaped courtyard that serves as a social area for residents. Trash pickup will occur at the front along West San Carlos on the project's designated trash pickup day. Street trees will be planted along both street frontages to provide shade for pedestrians and soften the building's appearance.

Traffic access and pedestrian access are adequate.

Analysis: Pedestrian access to the site will be via West San Carlos Street, and bicycle parking spaces will be located within a ground-floor room near the building's lobby entrance. There are two entrances along each street that provide access to the site. Vehicles will be parked in the site's ground-floor parking garage. b. State Density Bonus Law Findings. The project includes an application pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for verylow-income households. The Downtown General Plan land use designation allows residential density at 800 dwelling units per acre, equivalent to 714 base units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) and Government Code Section 65915(v)(1)(B), the project is eligible for a 20% density bonus, or 143 additional units. The project proposes 276 units and will not use the bonus to provide additional units.
ii
ll.

Incentives/Concessions. Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue incentives and concessions, such as reductions in development standards to facilitate the economically viable construction of affordable housing. The applicant qualifies for one incentives/ concessions per Government Code Section 65915. The project did not request an incentive.

Waivers. Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue waivers to development standards if the standard being waived would physically prevent project from being built with the allowed number of units. The project qualifies for unlimited waivers. The project has requested five waivers, as follows:
1) Waiver one. Per the Diridon Station Area plan, the east side of the project is subject to the lot line stepback plan per figure 2-4-7. The east property line is shared with an adjacent lot and has a 0 setback per zoning. A stepback plane must begin at a height of 35 feet, with a 6-foot stepback at a 75-degree angle from the horizontal.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 8 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 7 ends

The project is subject to Public Works requirements regarding sidewalk improvements, stormwater capture and drainage, and approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic. Additionally, this project must comply with the City's Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Policy 6-29), which requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include site design measures, source controls, and numerically sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges, per Public Works Final Memo dated July 09, 2026, and the project will not have an unacceptable negative effect to the surrounding environment.
vii. Landscaping, irrigation systems, walls and fences, features to conceal outdoor activities, exterior heating, ventilating, plumbing, utility, and trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood.

Analysis: The project includes both common and private open space for residents of the building. The common open space comprises a landscaped courtyard that serves as a social area for residents. Trash pickup will occur at the front along West San Carlos on the project's designated trash pickup day. Street trees will be planted along both street frontages to provide shade for pedestrians and soften the building's appearance. viii. Traffic access and pedestrian access are adequate.

Analysis: Pedestrian access to the site will be via West San Carlos Street, and bicycle parking spaces will be located within a ground-floor room near the building's lobby entrance. There are two entrances along each street that provide access to the site. Vehicles will be parked in the site's ground-floor parking garage. b. State Density Bonus Law Findings. The project includes an application pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The project provides 14 units for verylow-income households. The Downtown General Plan land use designation allows residential density at 800 dwelling units per acre, equivalent to 714 base units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915()(2) and Government Code Section 65915(v)(l)(B), the project is eligible for a 20% density bonus, or 143 additional units. The project proposes 276 units and will not use the bonus to provide additional units.

1. Incentives/Concessions. Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue incentives and concessions, such as reductions in development standards to facilitate the economically viable construction of affordable housing. The applicant qualifies for one incentives/ concessions per Government Code Section 65915. The project did not request an incentive.

11. Waivers. Projects that are eligible for a density bonus are also eligible to pursue waivers to development standards if the standard being waived would physically prevent project from being built with the allowed number of units. The project qualifies for unlimited waivers. The project has requested five waivers, as follows:

Page 8 ends

I) Waiver one. Per the Diridon Station Area plan, the east side of the project is subject to the lot line stepback plan per figure 2-4-7. The east property line is shared with an adjacent lot and has a 0 setback per zoning. A step back plane must begin at a height of 35 feet, with a 6-foot stepback at a 75-degree angle from the horizontal. 2)
3)
4)
5)
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 8 of 29 ends

Waiver two. Skyline Level Massing. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 4.3.2, for facades above 70 feet and wider than 200 feet, projects must include a change in massing (stepback or notch) at least 30 feet wide and 20 feet deep to reduce apparent bulk.

Analysis: The Gifford Avenue facade length is approximately 230 feet, requiring a change in massing. The project provides a 38-foot-wide by 3-foot-deep notch along Gifford Avenue. Providing the required 30-by-20-foot notch would result in a loss of at least six units as designed. As a result of the waiver request, the skyline-level massing requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.

Waiver three. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section

4.4.2.C, at least 50% of podium-level (below 70 feet) street-facing residential units must include balconies. Each balcony must be at least 4 feet deep by 20 feet wide.

Analysis: Of the 81 podium-level street-facing units along Gifford Avenue and West San Carlos Street, strict 50% compliance would require at least 41 qualifying balconies. The project provides 20 balconies, each approximately 6 feet 6 inches by 12 feet, for a total of approximately 1,560 square feet of balcony area. Full compliance would require approximately 3,280 square feet of balcony area, leaving a shortfall of approximately 1,720 square feet. Using the project's approximately 420-square-foot studio module, this additional required balcony area is equivalent to approximately 4.1 studio units, and would therefore result in a loss of at least four units. Full compliance would therefore physically preclude the project as designed by reducing residential yield and making the affected unit layouts infeasible. As a result of the waiver request, the balconies requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.

Waiver four. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section

5.3.3, Ground-floor residential units must be elevated 2 feet to 3 feet above grade to provide adequate separation from public space. The project provides ground-floor unit entries at grade level adjacent to open space.

Waiver five. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section

4.3.1, Podium-level building massing facing a public space that results in a fagade wider than 100 feet must be divided into visibly articulated smaller masses no wider than 80 feet. This may be achieved through projections and recesses, material changes, shadow relief, or other architectural elements.

Analysis: Introducing an additional recessed area to keep facade segments under 80 feet would reduce residential unit area by approximately 540 square feet, equivalent to at Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 9 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 8 of 29 ends

Page 9 ends

Analysis: The project provides a 10-foot stepback beginning at 15 feet in height. Full compliance with the stepback plane would significantly reduce unit sizes on floors 6 through 8. Compliance with this requirement would result in the loss of eight units. As a result of the waiver request, the stepback plane requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.
2) Waiver two. Skyline Level Massing. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section 4.3.2, for facades above 70 feet and wider than 200 feet, projects must include a change in massing (stepback or notch) at least 30 feet wide and 20 feet deep to reduce apparent bulk.

4.4.2.C, at least 50% of podium-level (below 70 feet) street-facing residential units must include balconies. Each balcony must be at least 4 feet deep by 20 feet wide.

Analysis: Of the 81 podium-level street-facing units along Gifford Avenue and West San Carlos Street, strict 50% compliance would require at least 41 qualifying balconies. The project provides 20 balconies, each approximately 6 feet 6 inches by 12 feet, for a total of approximately 1, 560 square feet of balcony area. Full compliance would require approximately 3, 280 square feet of balcony area, leaving a shortfall of approximately 1, 720 square feet. Using the project's approximately 420-square-foot studio module, this additional required balcony area is equivalent to approximately 4. 1 studio units, and would therefore result in a loss of at least four units. Full compliance would therefore physically preclude the project as designed by reducing residential yield and making the affected unit layouts infeasible. As a result of the waiver request, the balconies requirement has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed. 4) Waiver four. Per the San Jose Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards, Section

4.3. 1, Podium-level bui lding massing facing a public space that results in a facade wider than 100 feet must be divided into visibly articulated smal ler masses no wider than 80 feet. This may be achieved through projections and recesses, material changes, shadow relief, or other architectural elements.

Analysis: Introducing an additional recessed area to keep facade segments under 80 feet would reduce residential unit area by approximately 540 square feet, equivalent to al File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 9 of 29 ends

least one unit. As a result of the waiver request, the podium-level massing has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.

Chapter 20.190.090 of the San José Municipal Zoning Code requires that any project with a Density Bonus, incentives, or development standard waivers must make the following findings:

1. i.
iil.
iv.

The Housing Development is eligible for a Density Bonus and any Incentives, waivers or modifications requested.

Analysis: The project is entirely residential, consisting of at least 14 affordable rental units, and is therefore eligible for the State Density Bonus Law for affordable housing projects.

If the Density Bonus is based on all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the requirements for a land transfer Density Bonus that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a land donation.

If the Density Bonus or Incentive request is based all or in part on the inclusion of a Child Care Facility, a finding that all of the requirements for a Child Care Facility Density Bonus that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a Child Care Facility.

If the Incentive request is for a Mixed-Use development, a finding that all the requirements for a Mixed-Use Incentive development approval that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: Not applicable to the project scope of work.

If the Incentive includes a request for approval of condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements for a condominium conversion Incentive that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a request for condominium conversions.

In accordance with the findings set forth above, a Site Development Permit for said purpose specified above and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth is hereby granted. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement expressly declares that it would not have granted this Permit except upon and subject to each and all of the said conditions, each and all of which conditions shall run with the land and be binding upon the owner and all subsequent owners of the subject property, and all persons who use the subject property for the use conditionally permitted hereby.

APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

L. Acceptance of Permit. Per San José Municipal Code Section 20.100.290(B), should Permittee fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Permittee shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Permittee:

Acceptance of the Permit by the Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this permit or other approval and the provisions of Title 20 applicable to such Permit.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 10 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 9 ends

least one unit. As a result of the waiver request; the podium-level massing has been waived, allowing the project to construct all units as proposed.

Chapter 20. 1 90.090 of the San Jose Municipal Zoning Code requires that any project with a Density Bonus, incentives, or development standard waivers must make the following findings:

1. The Housing Development is eligible for a Density Bonus and any Incentives, waivers or modifications requested.

Analysis: The project is entirely residential, consisting of at least 14 affordable rental units, and is therefore eligible for the State Density Bonus Law for affordable housing projects.

11. If the Density Bonus is based on all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the requirements for a land transfer Density Bonus that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a land donation. iii. If the Density Bonus or Incentive request is based all or in part on the inclusion of a Child Care Facility, a finding that all of the requirements for a Child Care Facility Density Bonus that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: Not applicable to the project scope of work.
v. If the Incentive includes a request for approval of condominium conversion, a finding that all the requirements for a condominium conversion Incentive that are specified in the State Housing Density Bonuses and Incentives Law have been or will be met.

Analysis: The project does not include a request for condominium conversions.

In accordance with the findings set forth above, a Site Development Permit for said purpose specified above and subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth is hereby granted. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement expressly declares that it would not have granted this Permit except upon and subject to each and all of the said conditions, each and all of which conditions shall run with the land and be binding upon the owner and al l subsequent owners of the subject property, and all persons who use the subject property for the use conditionally permitted hereby.

APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. Acceptance of Permit. Per San Jose Municipal Code Section 20. 1 00.290(B), should Permittee fail to file a timely and valid appeal of this Permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction by the Permittee shall be deemed to constitute all of the following on behalf of the Permittee:
a. Acceptance of the Permit by the Permittee; and
b. Agreement by the Permittee to be bound by, to comply with, and to do al l things required of or by the Permittee pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of this permit or other approval and the provisions of Title 20 applicable to such Permit.

Page 10 ends

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 10 of 29 ends

Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically expire two (2) years from and after the date of issuance hereof by the Director of Planning, if within such time period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings (if a Building Permit is required) has not commenced, pursuant to and in accordance with the provision of this Permit. The date of issuance is the date this Permit is approved by the Director of Planning. However, the Director of Planning may approve a Permit Adjustment to extend the validity of this Permit in accordance with Title 20. The Permit Adjustment must be approved prior to the expiration of this Permit.

Senate Bill 330 Expiration. The Senate Bill 330 Vesting shall automatically expire two (2) and one half years from and after the date of issuance of the <final approval= for the Project as defined by and pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(2)(D), if within such time period, the Project has not <commenced construction=, as that term is defined and interpreted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(2)(D).

Building Permit/Certificate of Occupancy. Procurement of a Building Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official for the structures described or contemplated under this Permit shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions specified in this Permit and the Permittee's agreement to fully comply with all of said conditions. No change in the character of occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described in the Building Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required under San José Municipal Code Section 24.02.610, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws.

Sewage Treatment Demand. Pursuant to Chapter 15.12 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, acceptance of this Permit by Permittee shall constitute acknowledgement of receipt of notice by Permittee that (1) no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of this Permit when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand of the San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility- represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Facility will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of San José - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility to treat such sewage adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region; (2) substantive conditions designed to decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approval authority; (3) issuance of a Building Permit to implement this Permit may be suspended, conditioned or denied where the City Manager makes a determination that such action is necessary to remain within the aggregate operational capacity of the sanitary sewer system available to the City of San José or to meet the discharge standards of the sanitary sewer system imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region.

Conformance to Plans. The development of the site and all associated development and improvements shall conform to the approved Site Development Permit plans entitled, <THE GIFFORD (H25-039), 325 Gifford Ave, San Jose, CA 95126= dated April 27th, 2026 and civil set dates June 30", 2026 on file with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (<Approved Plans=), and to the San José Building Code (San José Municipal Code, Title 24), with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

Permit Adjustment. The applicant must file for a permit adjustment to add an additional balcony column on Gifford Avenue and change the balcony color/face to a wood-like grain instead of blue.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 11 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 10 ends

2. Permit Expiration. This Permit shall automatically expire two (2) years from and after the date of issuance hereof by the Director of Planning, if within such time period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings (if a Building Permit is required) has not commenced, pursuant to and in accordance with the provision of this Permit. The date of issuance is the date this Permit is approved by the Director of Planning. However, the Director of Planning may approve a Pennit Adjustment to extend the validity of this Permit in accordance with Title 20. The Permit Adj ustment must be approved prior to the expiration of this Permit.

3. Senate Bill 330 Expiration. The Senate Bill 330 Vesting shall automatically expire two (2) and one half years from and after the date of issuance of the "final approval" for the Project as defined by and pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(2)(D), if within such time period, the Project has not "commenced construction", as that term is defined and interpreted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(0)(2)(D).

4. Building Permit/Certificate of Occupancy. Procurement of a Bui lding Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official for the structures described or contemplated under this Permit shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions specified in this Permit and the Permittee's agreement to fully comply with all of said conditions. No change in the character of occupancy or change to a different group of occupancies as described in the Bui lding Code shall be made without first obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Official, as required under San Jose Municipal Code Section 24.02.6 10, and any such change in occupancy must comply with all other applicable local and state laws.

5. Sewage Treatment Demand. Pursuant to Chapter 15 .12 of Title 15 of the San Jose Municipal Code, acceptance of this Permit by Permittee shal l constitute acknowledgement of receipt of notice by Permittee that (I) no vested right to a Building Permit shall accrue as the result of the granting of this Permit when and if the City Manager makes a determination that the cumulative sewage treatment demand of the San Jose - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility- represented by approved land uses in the area served by said Facility will cause the total sewage treatment demand to meet or exceed the capacity of San Jose - Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility to treat such sewage adequately and within the discharge standards imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Qual ity Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region ; (2) substantive conditions designed to decrease sanitary sewage associated with any land use approval may be imposed by the approval authority; (3) issuance of a Building Permit to implement this Permit may be suspended, conditioned or denied where the City Manager makes a determination that such action is necessary to remain within the aggregate operational capacity of the sanitary sewer system available to the City of San Jose or to meet the discharge standards of the sanitary sewer system imposed on the City by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region.

6. Conformance to Plans. The development of the site and all associated development and improvements shall conform to the approved Site Development Permit plans entitled, "THE GIFFORD (H25-039), 325 Gifford Ave, San Jose, CA 95 1 26" dated April 27th, 2026 and civil set dates June 30, 2026 on file with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement ("Approved Plans"), and to the San Jose Building Code (San Jose Municipal Code, Title 24), with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

7. Permit Adjustm ent. The applicant must file for a permit adj ustment to add an additional balcony column on Gifford Avenue and change the balcony color/face to a wood-like grain instead of blue.

Page 11 ends

8. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

LT:

File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 11 of 29 ends

Delivery Trucks. All delivery trucks entering the parking garage shall be limited to Class 4 to Class 6 trucks that can clear a 12-foot ceiling height and turning radius in the parking garage; larger trucks Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for new construction, the Permittee shall submit a Permit Adjustment Application and enter into a Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement with the City. The final Regulatory Agreement, as amended and as approved by the City Attorney and by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder by the City. This Permit shall take effect upon the date of recordation of the Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement in the form approved by the City and shall have no force and effect prior to that date.

Extended Construction Hours. Normal construction hours within 500 feet of a residential unit are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 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 with no concrete pours on Saturday. Permitted work activities shall be conducted within the interior of enclosed building structures and the exterior of the building structures. Exterior generators, water pumps, compressors and idling trucks are not permitted.

Construction Disturbance Coordinator. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this Permit, along with the name and telephone number of a Permittee-appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.

Conformance with Municipal Code. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the San José Municipal Code.

Compliance with Local, State, and Federal Laws. The subject use shall be conducted in full compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.

Discretionary Review. The City maintains the right of discretionary review of requests to alter or amend structures, conditions, or restrictions of this Permit incorporated by reference in accordance with Chapter 20.100 of the San José Municipal Code.

Conformance with Previous Permits. Per the previously approved permit for File No. CP20-019, seven ordinance-size trees and 14 non-ordinance trees were removed during grading. The project is required to provide a total of 50 replacement trees at 15-gallon size or 25 trees at 24-inch box size.

Prior to the issuance of building permit(s), the permittee shall pay Off-Site Tree Replacement Fee(s) to the City for the total number of required replacement trees minus the number of trees shown on the Building Permit Landscape Plans in accordance with the City Council approved Fee Resolution in effect at the time of payment.

Tree Replacement Enforcement. Failure to plant trees in conformance with the Approved Plan set may be subject to in lieu fees in accordance with the City Council approved Fee Resolution in effect at the time of payment per 15-gallon tree for trees not planted on-site.

Verification of Planting of Replacement Tree(s). After payment of the in-lieu fee and/or the planting of required replacement trees on-site, the permittee shall provide appropriate evidence, such as but not limited to photographs and/or receipts, to the Planning Project Manager to verify Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 12 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 11 ends

9. Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for new construction, the Permittee shall submit a Permit Adj ustment Application and enter into a Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement with the City. The final Regulatory Agreement, as amended and as approved by the City Attorney and by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder by the City. This Permit shall take effect upon the date of recordation of the Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement in the form approved by the City and shal l have no force and effect prior to that date.

10. Extended Construction Hours. Normal construction hours within 500 feet of a residential unit are between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 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 with no concrete pours on Saturday. Permitted work activities shall be conducted within the interior of enclosed building structures and the exterior of the building structures. Exterior generators, water pumps, compressors and idling trucks are not permitted.

Permittee shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, at their discretion, may rescind provisions to allow extended hours of construction activities on weekends upon written notice to the Permittee.
11 . Construction Disturbance Coordinator. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this Permit, along with the name and telephone number of a Permittee-appointed disturbance coordinator, shal l be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.

12. Conformance with Municipal Code. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the San Jose Municipal Code.
13 . Compliance with Local, State, and Federal Laws. The subject use shal l be conducted in full compl iance with al l local, state, and federal laws.

14. Discretionary Review. The City maintains the right of discretionary review of requests to alter or amend structures, conditions, or restrictions of this Permit incorporated by reference in accordance with Chapter 20. 100 of the San Jose Municipal Code.

16. Tree Replacement Enforcement. Fail ure to plant trees in conformance with the Approved Plan set may be subject to in lieu fees in accordance with the City Council approved Fee Resolution in effect at the time of payment per 15-gallon tree for trees not planted on-site.

17. Verification of Planting of Replacement Tree(s). After payment of the in-l ieu fee and/or the planting of required replacement trees on-site, the permittee shall provide appropriate evidence, such as but not limited to photographs and/or receipts, to the Planning Proj ect Manager to verify

Page 12 ends

18. ihe

20. 21.

22. 23.

24. Dou

26. 2d.

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

Page 12 of 29 ends

compliance with the tree replacement mitigation requirements. Such evidence shall be uploaded to www.sjpermits.org using these instructions:
a. How to set up an account: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/business/development-services-permitcenter/online-permits-at-sjpermits-org and b. How to upload:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/88853/638088605255430000 c. Such evidence shall also be emailed to the Planning Project Manager and labeled File No. H25- 039.

Replacement Tree Failure. On-site replacement trees that fail within three years after planting shall be promptly replaced per Section 13.32.110.E of the San Jose Municipal Code.

Landscaping. Planting and irrigation are to be provided by the Permittee, as indicated, on the final Approved Plans. The permittee, at their discretion, may submit changes to the Approved Landscape Plans with the issuance of a Permit Adjustment, before the issuance of Building Permits.

Irrigation Standards. Irrigation shall be installed in accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 15.11 of Title 15 of the San José Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape Standards for New and Rehabilitated Landscaping, the City of San José Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and the Zonal Irrigation Plan in the Approved Plans. The design of the system shall be approved and stamped by a California Registered Landscape Architect.

Certification. Pursuant to San José Municipal Code, Section 15.11.1050 certificates of substantial completion for landscape and irrigation installation shall be completed by a licensed or certified professional and provided to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to approval of the final inspection of the project.

No Sign Approval. Any signage shown on the Approved Plan Set are conceptual only. No signs are approved at this time. Any signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning through a subsequent Permit Adjustment.

Building and Property Maintenance. The property shall be maintained in good visual and functional condition. This shall include, but not be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting, and landscaping.

Nuisance. This use shall be operated in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately upon notice by the City of San José.

Anti-Graffiti. All graffiti shall be removed from buildings and wall surfaces, including job sites for projects under construction, within 48 hours of defacement.

Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litter, refuse, and debris.

Cleaning shall include keeping all publicly used areas free of litter, trash, cigarette butts, and garbage.

Refuse. All trash and refuse storage areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the trash or refuse container(s). Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.

Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed or permitted unless designated on the Approved Plan Set.

Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing Page 13 Attachment F: Permit Approved at Director's Hearing
File Nos. H25-039 & ER25-225

Page 12 of 29 ends

18. Replacement Tree Failure. On-site replacement trees that fail within three years after planting shall be promptly replaced per Section 13. 32. 1 10.E of the San Jose Municipal Code.

19. Landscaping. Planting and irrigation are to be provided by the Permittee, as indicated, on the final Approved Plans. The permittee, at their discretion, may submit changes to the Approved Landscape Plans with the issuance of a Permit Adjustment, before the issuance of Building Permits.

20. Irrigation Standards. Irrigation shall be installed in accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 15.1 1 of Title 15 of the San Jose Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape Standards for New and Rehabilitated Landscaping, the City of San Jose Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines and the Zonal Irrigation Plan in the Approved Plans. The design of the system shall be approved and stamped by a California Registered Landscape Architect.
21 . Certification. Pursuant to San Jose Municipal Code, Section 15 .1 1.1050 certificates of substantial completion for landscape and irrigation installation shall be completed by a licensed or certified professional and provided to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to approval of the final inspection of the project.

22. No Sign Approval. Any signage shown on the Approved Plan Set are conceptual only. No signs are approved at this time. Any signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning through a subsequent Permit Adjustment.
23 . Building and Property Maintenance. The property shall be maintained in good visual and functional condition. This shal l include, but not be limited to, all exterior elements of the buildings such as paint, roof, paving, signs, lighting, and landscaping.

24. Nuisance. This use shall be operated in a manner that does not create a public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately upon notice by the City of San Jose.

25. Anti-Graffiti. All graffiti shal l be removed from buildings and wall surfaces, including job sites for projects under construction, within 48 hours of defacement.

26. Anti-Litter. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained free of litter, refuse, and debris.

Cleaning shall include keeping al l publicly used areas free of litter, trash, cigarette butts, and garbage.

27. Refuse. All trash and refuse storage areas shal l be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the trash or refuse container(s). Trash areas shal l be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.

28. Outdoor Storage. No outdoor storage is allowed or permitted unless designated on the Approved Plan Set.

Page 13 ends

San Jose City CouncilOctober 20, 2026

San Jose City Council
October 20, 2026