City of San Jose via email
200 East Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor Tower November 12th, 2021 San Jose, CA 95113-1905
Attention: City of San Jose Council
Subject: Item 10.2 on the 11/16/21 City Council Agenda, 1212-1224 S. Winchester Project Greetings Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
People like Tom and Gail Morman have spent a lot of time researching this project, the intent of the urban village, and working with the neighborhood to come up with ideas on how to create something that is a win-win. Their thoughts and the others they have been working with should be seriously considered as the council deliberates action.
As Chair of the D1 Leadership Group, I have seen the frustration of neighborhood leaders when concerns for their neighborhood are met with seemingly deaf ears. This isn't intended to be critical of city staff or council. I think everyone wants what's best for the City of San Jose, but there are several challenges, including:
● Decisions are made at the city or state level for neighborhoods, leaving the people who live there feeling powerless. With this kind of environment, it is easy for people to become apathetic. That is why people like Hamann Park's Vince Navarra stand out to me as an example of someone who keeps on going despite the many roadblocks to improving his neighborhood. ● The city itself needs to do better. The Mayor and other officials publicly complained about the City of San Jose's email system in a recent newspaper account. Having used the city’s email system, I concur with those criticisms. It is symptomatic of a city website that does not meet the needs for a truly transparent government. It takes countless hours just to find the documents needed to educate oneself on a particular issue.
● There is something else and it's not clear how to solve it, but it has something to do with execution.
○ I was in Las Vegas last month and saw the Boring Company/Tesla subway that connects their convention center to the new Resorts World hotel. In less than 2-years, Las Vegas has created a new mode of transportation, despite the pandemic. ○ In Boise, I see countless bikers of all ages and sizes riding bikes and walking on a safe, clean, and vibrant 26-mile greenbelt. It saddens me, as San Jose has the potential to do this sort of thing given it has a better climate and multiple rivers feeding downtown. ● But, finally, it comes down to the people. If citizens continue to see their city being disrespected with trash on the side of the road or the lack of consequences for criminal activities, they will become apathetic or simply leave. Perhaps that is one of the reasons Joint Venture's recent survey found that “56 percent of us are mulling plans to leave the region.” So, please seriously listen to the concerns being expressed by these citizens who have done their homework and care deeply about the future of our City.
In Community,
Ken Pyle,
San Jose, District 1 Resident
Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams
November 13, 2021
Regarding: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
Subject: TDM Reduction Request
To the Mayor and Honorable Members of the
City Council of the City of San José, California:
We, along with other homeowners in the Hamann Park neighborhood, oppose 1) a resolution adopting a Special Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of the proposed 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project, 2) the approval of an ordinance rezoning, and 3) the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the following reason:
We believe that the actual TDM Reduction required for this project is at least 52%, which exceeds the percentage of reduction allowable under Section 20.90.220.A.1 of the City of San Jose Parking Code. (The San Jose Parking Code specifies a reduction up to 50% may be authorized. 49% is the magic numbe r)
When the Employee Staff/Shift numbers listed in the Project’s Operating Plan (see Attachment A) are fully vetted, the TDM Reduction Request of 49%, as listed on Sheet A.02 Project Information & Tables Per the Project Plans is not realistic.
The Employee Staff/Shift numbers in the Project Operating Plan are questionable. In the submitted plan, the Developer clearly states that the “Employee staffing plan above is intended to minimize employee parking to no more than 10 parking spaces” (With only 66 parking spaces in the Project Plan, 10 employee spaces is the key number that makes the Developer’s TDM Reduction calculation of 49% work)
We believe the Developer’s Staffing Plan has incorrectly allocated employees across shifts and the number of employees per shift is too low to support a quality hotel of this size. The most obvious discrepancies occur in the following three key areas:
• Housekeeping
• Valet
• Shuttle Drivers
Housekeeping
First, to service 119 rooms and maintain the interior hotel areas for this proposed level of hotel, third party specialists we consulted indicated it would take at least 8 housekeeping staff*. The Developer’s Staffing Plan has only 6 housekeeping staff and is understated by at least 2.
*Per discussion with housekeeping staffing specialists Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC and Cappstone, Inc., as well as reviewing published Rooms/Housekeeper guidelines, the high-end expectation is 15 rooms per housekeeper per shift. 119 divided by 15 rooms per person equals 8 housekeepers needed. (Housekeeping also maintains guestrooms, laundry, lobby area, fitness center and locker rooms, lobby bathroom, jacuzzi area, employee break room and lockers, restaurant after breakfast hours and other common areas.)
Second, the Staffing Plan has split the 6 planned housekeepers across two shifts with 3 housekeepers working during the 6:00 am to 3:30 pm time frame and 3 working 3:00 pm to 12:30 am. The common industry standard is all rooms are serviced by 4:00 pm, not by after midnight! The Developer’s shift allocations do not make business sense. It appears they only make the math work to achieve a 49% TDM Reduction.
Valets
With only 66 available parking spaces, and with the hotel using 28 Upper/Lower stacked parking systems for parking 56 cars, 100% of the onsite parking needs to be done by Valets.
Per consultation with ABM Parking Services stacked parking systems take much longer to load or unload. ABM recommends that at least 2 Valets, possibly 3, will be required during the morning and evening rush periods. Additionally, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, on page 49 of their submitted Transportation Analysis, also recommend 2-3 Valets during those periods. (see Attachment B) The Staffing Plan only has 1 Valet on site at a time.
Shuttle Drivers
The Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM Plan”) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants indicates on page 13 that as part of their mitigation measures the proposed project would offer free shuttles to guests. The Staffing Plan provided by the Developer does not include any Shuttle Drivers.
In order to deliver on the free shuttles as stated in the TDM Plan (see Attachment C), the hotel will need at least 1 shuttle driver, most likely 2, during the morning and evening rush periods, especially for airport runs.
Actual TDM Reduction
After accounting for the proper reallocation of 3 Housekeepers to the 6:00 am to 4:00 pm day shift and the required addition of 2 more Housekeepers so all rooms are serviced by 4:00 pm; the addition of at least 1 Valet to fulfill the minimum parking staff required and the addition of at least 1 Shuttle Driver to each of the 6:00 am to 2:30 and 3:00 pm to 11:30 shifts to meet the TDM mitigation measure discussed above, there will be at least 17 employees on site at one time not 10 as per the submitted Staffing Plan. Therefore, the actual TDM Reduction that would be required for this project is at least 52% which exceeds the percentage of reduction allowable under Section 20.90.220.A.1 of the City of San Jose Parking Code.
Therefore, we ask that no action be taken on both the proposed ordinance rezoning for certain real property and the special use permit for the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project, as listed under item 10.2 of the City Council Amended Agenda for Tuesday, November
16, 2021, until the developer submits a plan which when fully vetted is not only in compliance with all City of San Jose Code requirements, but also conforms to the Winchester Urban Village Plan as originally presented to our neighborhood.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey N. Williams Jacqueline Pon Williams
Homeowner Homeowner
ATTACHMENT A
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Operations Plan
ATTACHMENT B
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc
1212 South Winchester Hotel Project Development
Transportation Analysis, Page 49
ATTACHMENT C
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc
1212 South Winchester Hotel Project Development
Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Page 13
We oppose the following:
1) Oppose adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2) Oppose the approval of an ordinance rezoning
3) Oppose a resolution adopting a Special Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of the hotel
We support the following:
1) Support the rezoning and permits only when both conform to the approved language in the Winchester Urban Village Plan for the land use designation assigned to these parcels: "Neighborhood/Community Commercial", Winchester Blvd Urban Village Plan, p.19,
Fire safety and mitigation is of utmost importance to the community with regards to any proposed project at the 1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd address.
The community has numerous times raised concerns with fire safety with the proposed six story Hotel project. In 2002, the Santana Row fire resulted in over $100 million in damages. According to OSHA, “The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus...ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible.” Developments on appropriately sized lots along Winchester have clearly marked fire lanes for fire truck access: A Grace Subacute, 1250 S. Winchester; Lynhaven Apartments, 919 S. Winchester; Villa Cortina, 801 S.
Winchester.
The North and South access of this project is 5’6” and 6’ 0” respectively. Fire fighting with the aid of a truck is limited to frontal aerial coverage. A fire at the mid to lower levels in the rear of the building will not be accessible with only frontal aerial coverage.
Fire safety should and needs to be incorporated into the initial design of the project and not towards the end of the project.
In the document dated October 2021, Responses to Public Comments and Text Changes, on page 28, Response I7 there is the following statement. “During the Planning Review, the Fire Department noted that a Fire Variance will be required for the project. The Fire Variance application will be deferred to the Building Permit stage. Approval of the Fire Variance is required prior to issuance of the Building Permit.”
Why is the fire safety plan only considered at during final permit approval?
As fire safety is a concern not only for the occupants but also for the general public, any Fire Variance should be addressed and made public as part of the initial design. This would allow for corrections to address any building design deficiencies related to the project.
I am not opposed to future development. A project that fits the heights of surrounding buildings, provides residential housing and commercial stores on the ground level is welcomed.
However, the shallow lots at this location is not conducive to a six story hotel. Many of the concerns raised by the community, address the ‘day to day operations’ of the proposed hotel.
These deficiencies (fire, parking, staffing, etc.) demonstrates a low feasibility of the hotel project to succeed. The community wishes to avoid the construction of a six story hotel that becomes a failure and blight in the neighborhood.
1/5/22, 8:58 AM Mail - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQA… 2/2 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.