San Jose City Council
January 11, 2022

Appendix B
Traffic Counts

WILLIAMS RD WILLIAMS RD WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 WINCHESTER BLVD & WILLIAMS RD AM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 07:45 AM - 08:00 AM
493 1,326
278
167
556 1,308
404
434

0.90 N
S
EW

0.93 0.67

0.98 0.89
(869) (2,355)
(450)
(271)
(733)
(643)
(958) (2,355) 1011514
19 181
78 90
80 234
0 0 363 25152 1,059 72 WILLIAMS RD WILLIAMS RD WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD 9 1
9 9 N
S
EW
0 1
6 3
5 4
7 2
0 010
0 0
1 0
001
2 0
3 0
3 N
S
W E
0 0
1 1 21 00
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 25 9 8 0 3 15 2 8 20 187 4 2 4 48 22 357 2,030 0 0 1 1 7:15 AM 0 31 8 14 0 13 28 3 6 34 216 12 2 2 61 22 452 2,301 0 0 1 1 7:30 AM 0 34 30 17 0 24 43 12 7 32 215 18 2 6 74 20 534 2,439 6 0 1 4 7:45 AM 0 43 42 20 0 29 90 6 5 44 235 41 3 5 99 25 687 2,483 3 0 0 4 8:00 AM 0 50 9 31 0 31 47 10 8 44 267 13 2 3 93 20 628 2,287 4 0 2 2 8:15 AM 0 58 17 20 0 9 22 3 4 39 277 8 4 4 96 29 590 1 1 2 2 8:30 AM 0 83 12 19 0 9 22 0 8 25 280 10 5 3 75 27 578 1 0 5 1 8:45 AM 0 42 5 16 0 13 12 4 4 28 250 6 2 0 86 23 491 1 0 1 1 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6
Lights 0 228 80 90 0 78 180 19 25 147 1,032 71 14 353 93 11 2,421 Mediums 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 27 1 1 10 3 2 56
Total 0 234 80 90 0 78 181 19 152 1,059 72 15 363 101 2,483 25 14

WILLIAMS RD WILLIAMS RD WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 WINCHESTER BLVD & WILLIAMS RD PM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:30 PM - 05:45 PM
1,080 1,194
94 129
1,170 1,080
524
285

0.94 N
S
EW

0.97 0.84

0.89 0.94
(2,095) (2,195)
(171)
(257)
(573)
(926)
(2,223) (2,056) 1321619
16 37
41 170
65 289
0 0 913 46116 870 48 WILLIAMS RD WILLIAMS RD WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD 2 1
8 4 N
S
EW
0 1
5 3
0 2
2 2
0 010
0 0
2 0
001
1 0
2 1
0 N
S
W E
0 0
0 1 00 00
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 44 12 38 0 1 7 0 11 20 179 12 2 1 214 41 582 2,470 3 2 3 0 4:15 PM 0 41 17 28 0 9 7 1 6 20 235 8 4 1 206 34 617 2,554 1 0 1 3 4:30 PM 0 60 19 34 0 6 10 4 8 31 174 12 7 5 187 31 588 2,624 0 0 9 5 4:45 PM 0 42 23 44 0 15 14 3 17 34 197 12 8 6 229 39 683 2,771 4 4 0 4 5:00 PM 0 66 15 42 0 11 11 6 9 27 197 11 6 3 229 33 666 2,778 3 1 3 1 5:15 PM 0 68 16 42 0 9 14 2 5 29 216 15 5 5 238 23 687 0 0 2 1 5:30 PM 0 74 21 41 0 12 4 6 15 34 240 13 5 5 226 39 735 1 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 81 13 45 0 9 8 2 17 26 217 9 3 3 220 37 690 0 0 3 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 285 65 169 0 41 36 16 46 115 862 47 16 905 130 19 2,752 Mediums 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 1 0 8 2 0 26
Total 0 289 65 170 0 41 37 16 116 870 48 16 913 132 2,778 46 19

PAYNE AVE PAYNE AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 WINCHESTER BLVD & PAYNE AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
477 1,166
301
164
686 1,137
469
368

0.96 N
S
EW

0.93 0.94

0.94 0.84
(815) (2,138)
(446)
(220)
(597)
(783)
(1,116) (2,027) 64632
56 113
132
174
68 227
0 0 375
5191 877 64 PAYNE AVE

PAYNE AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
8 9
39 5 N
S
EW
4 5
8 31
2 6
2 3
5 000
3 0
0 0
010
2 0
2 0
1 N
S
W E
4 1
1 1 10 21
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 24 4 26 0 8 14 10 0 17 132 1 3 3 45 12 299 1,851 1 4 4 0 7:15 AM 0 41 6 28 0 8 16 13 1 38 168 3 0 4 61 14 401 2,171 2 0 3 1 7:30 AM 0 54 10 48 0 34 28 8 1 41 194 13 0 5 87 20 543 2,384 0 2 5 2 7:45 AM 0 71 20 48 0 35 27 18 2 40 222 13 0 2 97 13 608 2,374 2 2 7 4 8:00 AM 0 58 23 37 0 29 32 17 2 46 229 18 4 19 89 16 619 2,220 2 4 15 1 8:15 AM 0 44 15 41 0 34 26 13 0 64 232 20 2 6 102 15 614 1 1 12 1 8:30 AM 0 51 9 45 0 13 20 13 0 34 255 6 4 2 59 22 533 3 3 6 0 8:45 AM 0 40 10 30 0 10 8 12 6 19 204 6 2 2 90 15 454 6 1 1 2 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lights 0 226 67 173 132 112 55 0 5 188 856 63 31 365 63 6 2,342 Mediums 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 21 1 1 10 0 0 41
Total 0 227 68 174 132 113 56 191 877 64 32 375 64 2,384 0 5 6

PAYNE AVE PAYNE AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 WINCHESTER BLVD & PAYNE AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:30 PM - 05:45 PM
1,127 998
182
203
1,139 916
484
369

0.95 N
S
EW

0.88 0.86

0.81 0.91
(2,082) (1,819)
(348)
(352)
(678)
(872)
(2,125) (1,672) 1636424
36 73
73 178
91 215
0 0 876 12133 723 48 PAYNE AVE

PAYNE AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
5 6
26 9 N
S
EW
2 4
10 16
4 1
3 6
0 010
0 0
2 0
020
2 0
2 0
1 N
S
W E
0 0
2 0 10 00
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 23 16 37 0 21 16 12 2 20 133 5 5 8 186 51 535 2,265 1 1 6 1 4:15 PM 0 51 16 48 0 12 9 10 3 29 172 9 4 11 188 28 590 2,411 2 6 5 2 4:30 PM 0 40 18 33 0 14 14 17 2 33 145 11 5 13 193 28 566 2,458 6 2 1 4 4:45 PM 0 40 23 43 0 18 13 10 6 32 145 9 9 10 180 36 574 2,608 7 2 6 1 5:00 PM 0 44 25 40 0 19 16 9 4 31 162 9 9 19 246 48 681 2,709 6 3 7 0 5:15 PM 0 47 26 57 0 18 16 4 2 26 175 7 5 14 199 41 637 2 1 4 2 5:30 PM 0 57 19 36 0 18 22 13 2 41 221 18 6 13 217 33 716 1 2 9 2 5:45 PM 0 67 21 45 0 18 19 10 4 35 165 14 4 18 214 41 675 0 0 6 1 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 213 91 178 0 73 73 36 11 133 712 47 64 866 161 24 2,682 Mediums 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 0 10 2 0 27
Total 0 215 91 178 0 73 73 36 133 723 48 64 876 163 2,709 12 24

WILLIAMSBURG DR DAVID AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 WINCHESTER BLVD & DAVID AVE AM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
699 1,271
86 52
744 1,245
99 62

0.95 N
S
EW

0.89 0.91

0.93 0.95
(1,245) (2,126)
(134)
(102)
(119)
(184)
(1,334) (2,118) 28420
45 4
37 39
1 59
0 0 647 21301,163 31 WILLIAMSBURG DR

DAVID AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
0 1
44 12
N
S
EW
0 1
16 28
0 0
9 3
0 000
0 0
0 0
020
3 0
0 0
9 N
S
W E
0 0
0 3 81 00
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 8 0 10 0 4 1 7 7 6 152 8 1 6 106 5 321 1,697 4 5 7 0 7:15 AM 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 4 8 5 191 12 2 3 100 2 352 1,916 3 4 4 0 7:30 AM 0 15 0 10 0 13 1 9 10 7 229 4 1 2 167 11 479 2,127 5 3 4 0 7:45 AM 0 13 1 12 0 13 0 10 6 7 263 13 4 5 188 10 545 2,129 6 1 7 0 8:00 AM 0 17 0 10 0 10 0 17 1 10 291 9 0 5 163 7 540 1,984 0 0 15 0 8:15 AM 0 18 0 7 0 10 0 15 7 7 316 6 0 7 165 5 563 3 0 16 0 8:30 AM 0 11 0 10 0 4 4 3 7 6 293 3 0 3 131 6 481 3 0 6 0 8:45 AM 0 14 0 8 0 2 0 2 6 11 210 7 0 8 124 8 400 5 0 2 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 58 1 38 0 37 4 45 21 30 1,135 31 20 635 28 4 2,087 Mediums 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 12 0 0 42
Total 0 59 1 39 0 37 4 45 30 1,163 31 20 647 28 2,129 21 4

WILLIAMSBURG DR DAVID AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 5 WINCHESTER BLVD & DAVID AVE PM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
1,152 1,002
80 95
1,175 1,041
95 96

0.91 N
S
EW

0.84 0.90

0.85 0.85
(2,160) (1,832)
(144)
(184)
(165)
(165)
(2,234) (1,946) 51838
39 5
36 33
3 59
0 0 1,055 5140896 54 WILLIAMSBURG DR

DAVID AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
1 12
28 24
N
S
EW
5 7
15 13
0 1
8 16
0 020
0 0
0 0
010
1 0
0 0
6 N
S
W E
0 0
1 0 24 00
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 7 2 10 0 7 1 4 14 7 177 10 1 10 258 7 515 2,047 5 6 8 0 4:15 PM 0 8 1 11 0 10 0 3 6 10 227 23 0 7 226 10 542 2,184 5 6 13 0 4:30 PM 0 6 2 6 0 14 0 5 14 8 202 7 0 6 239 8 517 2,218 5 4 11 0 4:45 PM 0 9 0 8 0 8 1 11 11 8 170 11 0 10 217 9 473 12 5 11 0 2,309 5:00 PM 0 9 0 13 0 14 1 9 14 10 222 17 1 7 321 14 652 2,368 4 3 5 1 5:15 PM 0 19 0 9 0 10 1 12 13 9 214 14 3 16 246 10 576 4 4 4 0 5:30 PM 0 19 1 7 0 5 2 10 15 12 268 10 1 4 241 13 608 13 3 11 0 5:45 PM 0 12 2 4 0 7 1 8 9 9 192 13 3 11 247 14 532 3 2 8 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lights 0 59 3 33 0 36 5 38 51 40 888 54 37 1,045 51 8 2,348 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 1 10 0 0 19
Total 0 59 3 33 0 36 5 39 40 896 54 38 1,055 51 2,368 51 8

HAMILTON AVE HAMILTON AVE WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 4 WINCHESTER BLVD & HAMILTON AVE AM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
940 1,269
2,003
1,395
941 1,049
857
1,244

0.94 N
S
W E

0.91 0.93

0.94 0.92
(1,615) (2,147)
(3,691)
(2,556)
(2,366)
(1,525)
(1,496) (1,734) 115
0 428
531
1,026
422
112
612
121
24 12
397
1091617331

HAMILTON AVE

HAMILTON AVE

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
5 13
7 14
N
S
W E
4 9
3 4
1 4
9 5
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 1 12 113 15 5 34 196 96 0 10 72 55 0 78 34 14 735 3,978 3 0 1 1 7:15 AM 0 16 125 13 5 56 288 122 1 15 86 60 0 104 50 19 960 4,508 1 1 4 3 7:30 AM 1 26 127 7 0 84 293 106 1 21 99 65 0 99 96 27 1,052 4,831 4 4 4 1 7:45 AM 0 29 142 27 5 108 264 122 0 19 161 88 0 114 117 35 1,231 4,849 3 4 1 0 8:00 AM 5 34 161 36 4 118 255 152 1 31 128 72 0 106 130 32 1,265 4,587 3 3 3 1 8:15 AM 1 32 161 29 5 119 293 142 7 21 154 96 0 103 91 29 1,283 2 3 1 3 8:30 AM 6 26 148 20 10 77 214 115 2 20 174 75 0 105 59 19 1,070 2 2 2 1 8:45 AM 4 17 170 21 7 79 209 108 2 10 118 70 0 78 62 14 969 2 1 3 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 16
Lights 12 120 597 108 24 410 1,005 524 10 87 602 325 0 418 387 113 4,742 Mediums 0 1 13 4 0 11 16 5 0 3 15 4 0 8 9 2 91
Total 12 121 612 112 24 422 1,026 531 10 91 617 331 0 428 397 115 4,849

CHURCH DRIVEWAY FIRESIDE DR WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 WINCHESTER BLVD & FIRESIDE DR AM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
462 1,202
69 33
483 1,226
5 44

0.95 N
S
EW

0.80 0.71

0.98 0.63
(817) (2,075)
(114)
(49)
(75)
(6)
(850) (2,112)
1320
67 0
2 5
0 0
0 0 438 38431,132 13 CHURCH DRIVEWAY

FIRESIDE DR WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
0 6
0 11 N
S
EW
5 1
0 0
0 0
7 4
0 010
2 0
0 0
010
0 0
0 0
2 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 11 11
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 4 146 0 0 1 57 0 223 1,355 1 2 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 4 211 1 0 3 80 0 317 1,594 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14 6 6 235 4 0 1 100 0 367 1,715 1 1 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 14 6 12 283 9 1 5 116 0 448 1,762 3 3 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 19 7 6 278 1 2 10 136 1 462 1,694 5 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 25 12 15 282 1 0 3 99 0 438 2 2 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 13 10 289 2 0 2 87 0 414 1 1 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 15 234 3 2 3 106 2 380 1 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Lights 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 67 38 42 1,105 11 20 429 1 3 1,722 Mediums 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 2 0 9 0 0 37
Total 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 67 43 1,132 13 20 438 1 1,762 38 3

CHURCH DRIVEWAY FIRESIDE DR WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 WINCHESTER BLVD & FIRESIDE DR PM
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:30 PM - 05:45 PM
1,161 995
36 70
1,116 994
16 26

0.94 N
S
EW

0.92 0.89

0.87 0.80
(2,114) (1,827)
(69)
(117)
(61)
(19)
(2,040) (1,843)
34933
34 0
2 15
0 0
0 1 1,076 2322928 21 CHURCH DRIVEWAY

FIRESIDE DR WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
0 2
0 6 N
S
EW
1 1
0 0
0 0
4 2
0 020
0 0
0 0
030
0 0
0 0
1 N
S
W E
0 0
0 0 01 00
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 6 10 164 0 6 10 231 0 439 1,838 1 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 12 7 224 2 3 10 209 0 474 1,953 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 7 8 203 1 6 10 221 1 464 1,993 9 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 6 8 189 2 5 11 229 1 461 2,118 5 3 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 8 11 4 209 11 15 288 3 0 554 2,207 1 1 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 11 8 6 215 5 9 12 245 0 514 3 1 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 10 1 4 273 7 3 7 278 1 589 2 0 0 0 5:45 PM 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 5 3 8 231 10 15 265 6 2 550 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 1 0 0 15 0 2 0 33 23 22 916 21 49 1,064 3 33 2,182 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 25
Total 1 0 0 15 0 2 0 34 22 928 21 49 1,076 3 2,207 23 33 Existing Reassignment Due to
Winchester Boulevard Improvement

CADILLAC DR COLONIAL WAY WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 WINCHESTER BLVD & COLONIAL WAY AM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
917 1,326
44 26
904 1,269
100
74 0.94
N
S
W E

0.85 0.73

0.95 0.89
(1,527) (2,253)
(76)
(40)
(113)
(179)
(1,515) (2,139) 73
73 44
0 0
70 0
29 0
1 834
001,25019

CADILLAC DR

COLONIAL WAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
3 8
0 29
N
S
W E
4 4
0 0
1 2
16 13
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 6 0 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 195 1 0 1 99 14 335 1,792 8 1 0 1 7:15 AM 0 7 0 20 0 0 0 6 0 0 223 2 0 2 135 13 408 2,076 4 3 1 0 7:30 AM 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 8 0 0 226 1 1 0 183 4 443 2,259 10 5 1 2 7:45 AM 0 11 0 19 0 0 0 8 0 0 288 5 0 4 246 25 606 2,330 5 1 0 1 8:00 AM 0 6 0 24 0 0 0 16 0 0 323 6 3 1 224 16 619 2,129 10 1 0 1 8:15 AM 0 4 0 17 0 0 0 9 0 0 332 3 0 1 211 14 591 8 3 0 0 8:30 AM 1 8 0 10 0 0 0 11 0 0 307 5 0 1 153 18 514 4 3 0 1 8:45 AM 0 10 0 4 0 0 0 11 0 0 217 5 0 2 148 8 405 7 2 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lights 1 28 0 68 0 0 0 44 0 0 1,226 19 3 7 817 71 2,284 Mediums 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 17 2 45
Total 1 29 0 70 0 0 0 44 0 0 1,250 19 3 7 834 73 2,330

CADILLAC DR COLONIAL WAY WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 1 WINCHESTER BLVD & COLONIAL WAY PM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
1,210 1,065
43 57
1,146 1,036
64 85

0.97 N
S
W E

0.93 0.94

0.94 0.66
(2,230) (2,034)
(77)
(113)
(159)
(122)
(2,107) (1,984) 85
7 20
43 0
0 48
2 14
0 0
1,098
001,00135

CADILLAC DR

COLONIAL WAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
1 12
0 31
N
S
W E
6 6
0 0
1 0
16 15
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 244 7 2 2 255 17 540 2,156 6 3 0 0 4:15 PM 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 9 0 0 211 14 2 6 216 25 495 2,222 13 4 0 0 4:30 PM 0 6 1 18 0 0 0 12 0 0 240 9 0 8 218 17 529 2,302 8 1 0 0 4:45 PM 0 5 1 14 0 0 0 12 0 0 223 11 1 3 307 15 592 2,353 7 3 0 0 5:00 PM 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 11 0 0 269 4 3 4 284 23 606 2,257 9 4 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 10 0 0 264 12 3 7 248 20 575 0 2 0 0 5:30 PM 0 7 1 17 0 0 0 10 0 0 245 8 0 6 259 27 580 12 1 0 1 5:45 PM 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 9 0 0 218 5 1 3 233 15 496 10 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lights 0 14 2 48 0 0 0 42 0 0 994 34 7 20 1,087 85 2,333 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 10 0 19
Total 0 14 2 48 0 0 0 43 0 0 1,001 35 7 20 1,098 85 2,353

IMPALA DR DRIVEWAY WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 WINCHESTER BLVD & DRIVEWAY AM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
936 1,242
0 0
971 1,288
72 83

0.91 N
S
W E

0.93 0.25

0.92 0.66
(1,560) (2,067)
(1)
()
(136)
(125)
(1,624) (2,141) 43
00 0
0 0
52 0
20 0
0 893
26401,2220

IMPALA DR

DRIVEWAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
0 8
1 27
N
S
W E
2 6
0 1
0 0
16 11
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 1 3 7 150 0 0 0 113 3 284 1,679 7 3 0 0 7:15 AM 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 0 5 8 222 0 0 0 145 5 399 2,023 4 1 0 0 7:30 AM 0 7 0 10 0 0 0 0 5 8 218 0 0 0 190 6 444 2,221 7 5 0 0 7:45 AM 0 10 0 19 0 0 0 0 10 5 251 0 0 0 242 15 552 2,296 6 3 0 0 8:00 AM 0 5 0 12 0 0 0 0 7 8 334 0 0 0 255 7 628 2,148 6 2 0 0 8:15 AM 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 5 13 309 0 0 0 248 12 597 7 3 1 0 8:30 AM 0 2 0 14 0 0 0 0 4 14 328 0 0 0 148 9 519 7 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 6 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 5 213 0 0 0 151 11 404 4 1 1 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4
Lights 0 20 0 52 0 0 0 0 26 39 1,200 0 0 0 875 41 2,253 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 15 2 39
Total 0 20 0 52 0 0 0 0 26 40 1,222 0 0 0 893 43 2,296

IMPALA DR DRIVEWAY WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 2 WINCHESTER BLVD & DRIVEWAY PM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 04:45 PM - 05:00 PM
1,160 1,034
0 0
1,185 1,112
45 98

0.98 N
S
W E

0.90 0.25

0.96 0.80
(2,174) (1,967)
(1)
(1)
(214)
(76)
(2,206) (2,137) 44
00 0
0 0
33 0
12 0
0 1,116
36541,0220

IMPALA DR

DRIVEWAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
0 11
0 33
N
S
W E
7 4
0 0
0 0
13 20
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 18 228 0 0 0 272 16 549 2,128 3 3 0 0 4:15 PM 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 15 210 0 1 1 203 9 449 2,167 10 1 0 0 4:30 PM 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 20 259 0 0 0 230 11 537 2,307 6 4 0 0 4:45 PM 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 6 19 234 0 0 0 304 19 593 2,317 7 4 0 0 5:00 PM 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 14 15 256 0 0 0 283 6 588 2,260 12 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 9 262 0 0 0 290 10 589 5 5 0 0 5:30 PM 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 8 11 270 0 0 0 239 9 547 5 2 0 0 5:45 PM 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 8 17 229 0 0 0 261 10 536 17 0 1 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lights 0 12 0 33 0 0 0 0 36 54 1,014 0 0 0 1,103 44 2,296 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 12 0 20
Total 0 12 0 33 0 0 0 0 36 54 1,022 0 0 0 1,116 44 2,317

ROSEMARY LN ROSEMARY LN WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 WINCHESTER BLVD & ROSEMARY LN AM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:00 AM - 08:15 AM
959 1,285
25 25
924 1,279
19 48

0.91 N
S
W E

0.91 0.81

0.93 0.72
(1,630) (2,179)
(51)
(38)
(82)
(36)
(1,588) (2,170) 48
91 20
0 5
18 0
1 0
0 901
001,26316

ROSEMARY LN

ROSEMARY LN

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
0 10
0 24
N
S
W E
5 5
0 0
0 0
13 11
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 7:00 AM 1 0 0 3 0 6 0 1 0 0 169 2 0 1 111 3 297 1,748 3 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 5 0 0 243 2 0 0 157 8 423 2,078 7 1 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 0 0 226 4 0 2 209 15 464 2,237 4 0 0 1 7:45 AM 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 0 0 271 5 0 1 254 24 564 2,282 4 2 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 343 1 0 3 252 13 627 2,139 7 1 0 0 8:15 AM 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 8 0 0 327 2 0 3 234 3 582 3 3 0 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 322 8 1 2 161 8 509 6 1 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 244 1 0 1 157 7 421 2 1 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3
Lights 0 0 0 18 0 5 0 20 0 0 1,239 16 1 9 880 48 2,236
Mediums 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 19 0 43
Total 0 1 0 18 0 5 0 20 0 0 1,263 16 1 9 901 48 2,282

ROSEMARY LN ROSEMARY LN WINCHESTER BLVD WINCHESTER BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location: 3 WINCHESTER BLVD & ROSEMARY LN PM
Date and Start Time: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Peak Hour: 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM
1,196 1,117
27 53
1,149 1,128
10 42

0.94 N
S
W E

0.87 0.52

0.96 0.58
(2,247) (2,134)
(43)
(98)
(83)
(26)
(2,161) (2,160) 42
6 19
17 0
10 10
0 0
0 0
1,129
001,09434

ROSEMARY LN

ROSEMARY LN

WINCHESTER BLVD

WINCHESTER BLVD
0 12
0 42
N
S
W E
7 5
0 0
0 0
24 18
Left Thru Right Total
Interval Eastbound
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right 4:00 PM 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 245 8 0 4 270 11 546 2,155 3 3 0 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 241 10 0 4 197 9 469 2,238 6 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 272 5 1 2 259 7 550 2,356 2 6 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 269 8 2 3 296 6 590 2,361 10 4 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 9 0 0 263 6 3 7 319 16 629 2,321 12 1 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 4 0 0 289 6 0 6 268 8 587 3 5 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 273 14 1 3 246 12 555 10 2 0 0 5:45 PM 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 4 0 0 245 6 0 6 267 14 550 16 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right
Eastbound
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right U-Turn Left Thru Right Total Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lights 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 17 0 0 1,086 34 6 18 1,117 42 2,339 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 12 0 22
Total 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 17 0 0 1,094 34 6 19 1,129 42 2,361 Reassignment of Existing Traffic AM Reassignment of Existing Traffic PM Differ.: Differ.:
0 AM 01/07/00
Differ.: (0) PM 01/07/00
0 (0)
0 R 0 (0) 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) T 0 (0) (0)
0 0 0 L 0 (0)
RTL Payne Avenue
7 (7) 12 L 3737 L T R
12 (0) 0 T 0 -12 0 0
(7) (0) 0 R (0) (-7) (0) (0)
0 (0)
Differ.: -12
(-7)
Differ.: 0 (0) 1 (0) Differ.:
-8%
0 AM 01/01/00
Differ.: (0) PM 01/01/00
-13
(-7)
0 R 0 (0) 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) T 0 (0) (0)
0 0 0 L 0 (0)
RTL David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive
1 (7) 12 L 3882 L T R
12 (0) 0 T 0 -25 0 0
(7) (0) 0 R (0) (-14) (0) (0)
0 (0)
Differ.: -25
(-14)
Differ.: 0 (0) 0 (0) Differ.:
0%
0 AM 01/02/00
Differ.: (0) PM 01/02/00
-25
(-14)
0 R 0 (0) 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) T 0 (0) (0)
0 0 0 L 0 (0)
RTL Cadillac Drive
2 (0) 0 L 201 L T R
-15 (0) 0 T 0 -25 0 0
(-8) (-8) -15 R (0) (-14) (0) (0)
(15)
(-8)
Differ.: -25
(-14)
Differ.: 1 (0) -30 (-16) Differ.:
-7% 300%
-14 AM 01/03/00
Differ.: (-8) PM 01/03/00
5 (2)
0 R 0 (0) 0
(0) (0) (8) (-16) T 0 (0) (0)
0 15 -29 L 0 (0)
RTL Colonial Way
3 (0) 0 L 202 L T R
0 (0) 0 T 0 5 0 -29
(0) (0) 0 R (0) (2) (0) (-16)
15 (8)
Differ.: 5
(2)
Differ.: 0 (0) 0 (0) Differ.:
0% (0%) 0% (0%)
15 AM 01/04/00
Differ.: (8) PM 01/04/00
5 (2)
5 R 0 (0) 0
(10) (0) (8) (0) T 0 (0) (0)
0 15 0 L 0 (0)
RTL Impala Drive
4 (-12) -20 L 203 L T R
-10 (0) 0 T 5 25 0 0
(-6) (6) 10 R (10) (14) (0) (0)
25 (14)
Differ.: 30
(24)
Differ.: -5 (-15) -1 (-6) Differ.:
-22% -3% (-22%)
20 AM 01/05/00
Differ.: (-1) PM 01/05/00
31 (30)
0 R 5 (10) 0
(0) (0) (49) (-50) T 0 (0) (0)
0 40 -20 L -5 (-10)
RTL Rosemary Lane
5 (0) -1 L 204 L T R
0 (0) 0 T 0 27 9 -11
(0) (0) 1 R (0) (20) (19) (-31)
36 (39)
Differ.: 36
(39)
Differ.: 0 (0) 36 (39) Differ.:
0% (0%) 200% (200%)
36 AM 01/06/00
Differ.: (39) PM 01/06/00
0 (0)
0 R 0 (0) 0
(0) (0) (0) (39) T 0 (0) (0)
0 0 36 L 0 (0)
RTL Hamilton Avenue
6 (0) 0 L 102 L T R
0 (0) 0 T 0 0 0 36
(0) (0) 0 R (0) (0) (0) (39)
0 (0)
Differ.: 0
(0)
Winchester Boulevard Winchester Boulevard Winchester Boulevard Winchester Boulevard Winchester Boulevard Winchester Boulevard Winchester Boulevard Appendix C
Approved Trips Inventory
AM
Payne Av & S Winchester Bl
3737
Permit No./Proposed Land
Use/Description/Location
M09
NBL
M08
NBT
M07
NBR
M03
SBL
M02
SBT
M01
SBR
M12
EBL
M11
EBT
M10
EBR
M06
WBL
M05
WBT
M04
WBR

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

TOTAL:
1 11/05/2019
PDC12-009 (3-06815) 0 16 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 2
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
PDC14-040 (3-01388) 0 10 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LEGACY

WINCHESTER RESERVE
863-917 WINCHESTER BLVD
PDC14-068 (3-10478) 0 62 0 1 7 2 13 0 0 0 0 6
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA WEST
3161 OLSEN DRIVE
PDC97-036 RET (3-06815) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
1 45 3
0 0 8
0 89 0
16 0 0
0 89 0 1 45 3 16 0 0 0 0 8
Page No:

LEFT THRU RIGHT
NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
PM
Payne Av & S Winchester Bl
3737
Permit No./Proposed Land
Use/Description/Location
M09
NBL
M08
NBT
M07
NBR
M03
SBL
M02
SBT
M01
SBR
M12
EBL
M11
EBT
M10
EBR
M06
WBL
M05
WBT
M04
WBR

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

TOTAL:
2 11/05/2019
PDC12-009 (3-06815) 0 9 0 2 15 3 2 0 0 0 0 1
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
PDC14-040 (3-01388) 0 40 0 1 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
LEGACY

WINCHESTER RESERVE
863-917 WINCHESTER BLVD
PDC14-068 (3-10478) 0 11 0 6 55 11 3 0 0 0 0 1
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA WEST
3161 OLSEN DRIVE
PDC97-036 RET (3-06815) 0 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
9 96 16
0 0 3
0 63 0
7 0 0
0 63 0 9 96 16 7 0 0 0 0 3
Page No:

LEFT THRU RIGHT
NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
AM
Williams Rd & S Winchester Bl
3836
Permit No./Proposed Land
Use/Description/Location
M09
NBL
M08
NBT
M07
NBR
M03
SBL
M02
SBT
M01
SBR
M12
EBL
M11
EBT
M10
EBR
M06
WBL
M05
WBT
M04
WBR

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

TOTAL:
3 11/05/2019
PDC12-009 (3-06815) 0 21 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 2
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
PDC14-040 (3-01388) 10 0 0 50 20 5 65 9 16 0 4 0
LEGACY

WINCHESTER RESERVE
863-917 WINCHESTER BLVD
PDC14-068 (3-10478) 0 80 0 1 10 2 13 0 0 0 0 6
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA WEST
3161 OLSEN DRIVE
PDC97-036 RET (3-06815) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
51 35 8
0 4 8
10 102 0
81 9 16
10 102 0 51 35 8 81 9 16 0 4 8
Page No:

LEFT THRU RIGHT
NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
PM
Williams Rd & S Winchester Bl
3836
Permit No./Proposed Land
Use/Description/Location
M09
NBL
M08
NBT
M07
NBR
M03
SBL
M02
SBT
M01
SBR
M12
EBL
M11
EBT
M10
EBR
M06
WBL
M05
WBT
M04
WBR

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

TOTAL:
4 11/05/2019
PDC12-009 (3-06815) 0 12 0 2 20 3 2 0 0 0 0 1
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
PDC14-040 (3-01388) 41 0 0 26 10 19 38 6 14 0 17 0
LEGACY

WINCHESTER RESERVE
863-917 WINCHESTER BLVD
PDC14-068 (3-10478) 0 14 0 6 72 11 3 0 0 0 0 1
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA WEST
3161 OLSEN DRIVE
PDC97-036 RET (3-06815) 0 4 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Retail/Commercial

SANTANA ROW

STEVENS CREEK & WINCHESTER (SE/C)
34 106 34
0 17 2
41 30 0
44 6 14
41 30 0 34 106 34 44 6 14 0 17 2
Page No:

LEFT THRU RIGHT
NORTH
EAST
SOUTH
WEST
City of Campbell Approved and Pending Projects (Provided by the City of Campbell on December 3, 2019) # Project Name Location Project Description
Approved Projects
1 95 East Hamilton Avenue 95 East Hamilton Avenue 5,800 s.f. office building2 Creekside Center 675/705 Creekside Way 172,000 s.f. of office space (office use is under construction; hotel use is already occupied)
3 Pruneyard Expansion 1875/1901 South Bascom Avenue 100,000 s.f. office building and 23,000 s..f of retail space (Phase 2 - Building 'R5' (5,000 s.f. has been completed. Most of the center is occupied. 4 Opa Expansion 276 East Campbell Avenue 10,819 s.f. of commercial and office5 Springbridge 1625 West Campbell Avenue commerical day care center capacity increase from 60 to 100 children6 Cresleigh Homes 540/558/566 East Campell Ave and 24/34 Dillon Avenue 6,512 s.f. of ground level commercial space and 59 condos.7 Trojan Storage 750 East McGlincy Lane 156,000 s.f. self-storage facility8 Chick-fil-A 2060 South Bascom Avenue 5,000 s.f. of fast-food with driveway-through window Pending Projects
9 Elephant Bar 499 E Hamilton Ave 8,250 s.f. of restaurant space 10 Franciscan 601 Almarida Drive
Addition of 60 units to an existing apartment community Appendix D
Volume Summary
Winchester Hotel AM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 3836
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road Peak Hour: AM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 101 363 29 19 181 78 72 1059 177 90 80 234 2483 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 8 35 51 8 4 0 0 102 10 16 9 81 324
Valley Fair Expansion 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 3 31
Campbell Approved Trips 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 25
Total Approved Trips 10 58 51 8 4 0 0 125 12 19 9 84 380 Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 00 000 0 00 000 0
due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 111 421 80 27 185 78 72 1184 189 109 89 318 2863 Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 25
Background Plus Project Conditions 111 432 80 27 185 78 72 1194 193 109 89 318 2888 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 7 8 5 0 0 28
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 8
Campbell Pending Trips 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 2 0 0 18
Total Pending Trips 0 17 0 0 0 1 0 18 10 8 0 0 54
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 111 449 80 27 185 79 72 1212 203 117 89 318 2942 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel AM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 3737
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue Peak Hour: AM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 64 375 38 56 113 132 64 877 196 174 68 227 2384 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 3 45 1 8 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 16 162
Valley Fair Expansion 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 2 26
Campbell Approved Trips 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 4 0 0 31
Total Approved Trips 5 69 1 8 0 0 0 112 2 4 0 18 219
Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 0 12 0 due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 69 444 39 64 113 132 64 977 198 178 68 257 2603 Project Trips 0 13 11 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 6 50
Background Plus Project Conditions 69 457 50 64 113 132 64 997 198 178 68 263 2653 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 16
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 9
Campbell Pending Trips 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 2 0 0 22
Total Pending Trips 3 18 0 1 0 0 0 19 2 3 0 1 47
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 72 475 50 65 113 132 64 1016 200 181 68 264 2700 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel AM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3882
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive Peak Hour: AM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 28 647 24 45 4 37 31 1163 51 39 1 59 2129 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 134
Valley Fair Expansion 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 22
Campbell Approved Trips 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 31
Total Approved Trips 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 187
Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -25 0 0 0 12 -13 due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 28 720 24 45 4 37 31 1252 51 39 1 71 2303 Project Trips 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 33
Background Plus Project Conditions 28 733 24 45 4 37 31 1272 51 39 1 71 2336 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 1 20
Campbell Pending Trips 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 22
Total Pending Trips 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 11 0 0 1 54
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 28 754 24 45 4 37 31 1293 62 39 1 72 2390 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel AM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 102
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue Peak Hour: AM
Count Date: 4/24/18
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 115 397 428 531 1026 446 331 617 101 112 612 133 4849 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 9 27 9 18 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 18 134
Valley Fair Expansion 2 2 4 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 22
Campbell Approved Trips 2 4 14 5 9 11 13 4 0 1 26 2 91
Total Approved Trips 13 33 27 29 9 11 13 61 0 1 26 24 247 Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 128 430 491 560 1035 457 344 678 101 113 638 157 5132 Project Trips 1 1 11 17 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 34
Background Plus Project Conditions 129 431 502 577 1035 457 344 680 101 113 638 159 5166 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 1 1 4 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 2 2 9 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 24
Campbell Pending Trips 0 0 10 12 12 12 10 0 0 0 10 0 66 Total Pending Trips 3 3 23 27 12 12 10 3 0 0 10 0 103
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 132 434 525 604 1047 469 354 683 101 113 648 159 5269 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel AM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 9001
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Peak Hour: AM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 1 438 23 67 0 0 13 1132 81 5 0 0 1760 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 162
Valley Fair Expansion 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 26
Campbell Approved Trips 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 25
Total Approved Trips 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 213
Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 00 000 0 00 000 0
due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 1 513 23 67 0 0 13 1270 81 5 0 0 1973 Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 14 13 0 0 0 38
Background Plus Project Conditions 1 524 23 67 0 0 13 1284 94 5 0 0 2011 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 16
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 8
Campbell Pending Trips 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 18
Total Pending Trips 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 42
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 1 545 23 67 0 0 13 1305 94 5 0 0 2053 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel PM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 3836
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road Peak Hour: PM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 132 913 35 16 37 41 48 870 162 170 65 289 2778 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 34 106 34 2 17 0 0 30 41 14 6 44 328
Valley Fair Expansion 9 50 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 8 113
Campbell Approved Trips 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 4 4 0 0 38
Total Approved Trips 43 171 34 2 17 0 0 91 45 18 6 52 479 Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 00 000 0 00 000 0
due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 175 1084 69 18 54 41 48 961 207 188 71 341 3257 Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 14 6 0 0 0 31
Background Plus Project Conditions 175 1095 69 18 54 41 48 975 213 188 71 341 3288 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 11 7 4 0 0 29
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 9
Campbell Pending Trips 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 18
Total Pending Trips 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 21 8 8 0 0 56
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 175 1113 69 18 54 41 49 996 221 196 71 341 3344 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel PM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 3737
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue Peak Hour: PM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 163 876 88 36 73 73 48 723 145 178 91 215 2709 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 16 96 9 3 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 7 194
Valley Fair Expansion 8 42 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 7 96
Campbell Approved Trips 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 19 5 5 0 0 48
Total Approved Trips 24 157 9 3 0 0 0 121 5 5 0 14 338
Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 7 0 due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 187 1033 97 39 73 73 48 837 150 183 91 236 3047 Project Trips 0 19 11 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 6 56
Background Plus Project Conditions 187 1052 108 39 73 73 48 857 150 183 91 242 3103 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 19
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 10
Campbell Pending Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 23
Total Pending Trips 4 24 1 0 0 0 0 16 2 4 0 1 52
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 191 1076 109 39 73 73 48 873 152 187 91 243 3155 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel PM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3882
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive Peak Hour: PM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 51 1055 46 39 5 36 54 896 91 33 3 59 2368 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 159
Valley Fair Expansion 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 81
Campbell Approved Trips 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 48
Total Approved Trips 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 0 0 0 288
Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -14 0 0 0 7 -7 due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 51 1217 46 39 5 36 54 1008 91 33 3 66 2649 Project Trips 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 39
Background Plus Project Conditions 51 1236 46 39 5 36 54 1028 91 33 3 66 2688 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 14
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 1 20
Campbell Pending Trips 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 23
Total Pending Trips 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 17 10 0 0 1 57
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 51 1265 46 39 5 36 54 1045 101 33 3 67 2745 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel PM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 102
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue Peak Hour: PM
Count Date: 12/13/18
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 178 646 432 481 959 393 301 490 162 176 961 173 5352 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 19 58 19 13 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 13 159
Valley Fair Expansion 13 13 16 15 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 81
Campbell Approved Trips 2 4 18 17 26 20 11 5 2 1 27 2 135 Total Approved Trips 34 75 53 45 26 20 11 54 2 1 27 27 375 Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 212 721 524 526 985 413 312 544 164 177 988 200 5766 Project Trips 2 2 15 17 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 40
Background Plus Project Conditions 214 723 539 543 985 413 312 546 164 177 988 202 5806 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 2 1 6 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 4 2 13 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 29
Campbell Pending Trips 0 0 14 9 9 9 14 0 0 0 14 0 69
Total Pending Trips 6 3 33 21 9 9 14 3 0 0 14 1 113
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 220 726 572 564 994 422 326 549 164 177 1002 203 5919 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Winchester Hotel PM Peak-Hour 6/16/2020
Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 9001
Intersection Name: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Peak Hour: PM
Count Date: 11/19/19
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 3 1076 82 34 0 0 21 928 45 15 0 0 2204 San Jose Approved Trips
ATI 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 194
Valley Fair Expansion 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 96
Campbell Approved Trips 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 38
Total Approved Trips 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 0 0 328
Reassignment of Existing Traffic 0 00 000 0 00 000 0
due to Winchester Blvd Improvements
Background Conditions 3 1266 82 34 0 0 21 1066 45 15 0 0 2532 Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 49
Background Plus Project Conditions 3 1277 82 34 0 0 21 1085 64 15 0 0 2581 San Jose Pending Trips
1073 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 19
1495 Winchester Mixed-Use 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 9
Campbell Pending Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 18
Total Pending Trips 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 46
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 3 1306 82 34 0 0 21 1102 64 15 0 0 2627 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Appendix E
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (AM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 101 363 29***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
234*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 19

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 80 0 Critical V/C: 0.531 0 181***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 30.1 0
90 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 32.9 1 78
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 177 1059*** 72
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.32 0.68 2.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 4379 1219 3150 847 953 1750 1629 171 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 39.2 64.3 80.1 7.0 32.1 32.1 17.1 26.9 26.9 15.8 25.6 25.6 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.55 0.06 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.55 0.44 0.44 0.35 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 33.6 21.3 8.7 58.9 38.3 38.3 52.3 43.8 43.8 51.4 46.7 46.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 33.6 21.3 8.7 58.9 38.3 38.3 52.3 43.8 43.8 51.4 46.7 46.7 LOS by Move: C C A E D D D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 14 1 1 5 5 6 6 6 3 8 8
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (AM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 111 421 80***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
318*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 27

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 89 0 Critical V/C: 0.667 0 185***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.5 0
109 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.9 1 78
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 189 1184*** 72
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 12 125 0 51 58 10 84 9 19 0 4 8
Initial Fut: 189 1184 72 80 421 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 189 1184 72 80 421 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 189 1184 72 80 421 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 189 1184 72 80 421 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.57 0.43 2.00 0.45 0.55 1.00 0.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 1750 3488 212 1750 2927 772 3150 809 991 1750 1571 229 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 31.2 64.1 64.1 8.6 41.5 41.5 19.1 27.4 27.4 13.9 22.2 22.2 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.44 0.44 0.67 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.67 0.67 Delay/Veh: 40.7 24.0 24.0 70.8 33.3 33.3 54.1 44.4 44.4 53.6 53.8 53.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.7 24.0 24.0 70.8 33.3 33.3 54.1 44.4 44.4 53.6 53.8 53.8 LOS by Move: D C C E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 19 19 3 8 8 8 7 7 3 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (AM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 111 432 80***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
318*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 27

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 89 0 Critical V/C: 0.670 0 185***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.5 0
109 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.9 1 78
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 193 1194*** 72
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 177 1059 72 29 363 101 234 80 90 78 181 19 Added Vol: 4 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 12 125 0 51 58 10 84 9 19 0 4 8
Initial Fut: 193 1194 72 80 432 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 193 1194 72 80 432 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 193 1194 72 80 432 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 193 1194 72 80 432 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.58 0.42 2.00 0.45 0.55 1.00 0.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 1750 3489 210 1750 2943 756 3150 809 991 1750 1571 229 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 31.3 64.3 64.3 8.6 41.6 41.6 19.0 27.3 27.3 13.8 22.1 22.1 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.44 0.44 0.67 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.67 0.67 Delay/Veh: 40.7 23.9 23.9 71.2 33.4 33.4 54.3 44.5 44.5 53.7 54.0 54.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.7 23.9 23.9 71.2 33.4 33.4 54.3 44.5 44.5 53.7 54.0 54.0 LOS by Move: D C C E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 19 19 3 8 8 8 7 7 3 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (AM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 111 449 80***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
318*** 2
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 27

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 89 0 Critical V/C: 0.676 0 185***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 34.4 0
117 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 36.0 1 79
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 203 1212*** 72
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 189 1184 72 80 421 111 318 89 109 78 185 27
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 189 1184 72 80 421 111 318 89 109 78 185 27 Added Vol: 4 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 10 18 0 0 17 0 0 0 8 1 0 0
Initial Fut: 203 1212 72 80 449 111 318 89 117 79 185 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 203 1212 72 80 449 111 318 89 117 79 185 27 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 203 1212 72 80 449 111 318 89 117 79 185 27 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 203 1212 72 80 449 111 318 89 117 79 185 27 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.59 0.41 2.00 0.43 0.57 1.00 0.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 1750 3492 207 1750 2966 733 3150 778 1022 1750 1571 229 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 31.8 64.7 64.7 8.5 41.5 41.5 18.8 27.5 27.5 13.3 22.0 22.0 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.46 0.46 0.68 0.53 0.53 0.43 0.68 0.68 Delay/Veh: 40.6 23.8 23.8 71.9 33.7 33.7 54.6 44.8 44.8 54.3 54.5 54.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.6 23.8 23.8 71.9 33.7 33.7 54.6 44.8 44.8 54.3 54.5 54.5 LOS by Move: D C C E C C D D D D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 19 19 3 8 8 8 8 8 4 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-9
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 132 913*** 35
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
289 2
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 16

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 65*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.474 0 37
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 36.7 0
170 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 34.7 1 41***
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 162*** 870 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.61 0.39 2.00 0.28 0.72 1.00 0.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 4892 707 3150 498 1302 1750 1257 543 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.23 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.3 67.7 74.7 14.8 55.1 55.1 25.6 38.6 38.6 7.0 19.9 19.9 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.47 0.05 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.50 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.21 0.21 Delay/Veh: 51.0 24.4 15.7 57.6 31.8 31.8 52.1 43.0 43.0 68.6 53.4 53.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 51.0 24.4 15.7 57.6 31.8 31.8 52.1 43.0 43.0 68.6 53.4 53.4 LOS by Move: D C B E C C D D D E D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 12 1 1 11 11 7 9 9 2 2 2
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-10
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (PM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 175 1084*** 69
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
341 2
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 18

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 71*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.685 0 54
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 37.9 0
188 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.5 1 41***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 207*** 961 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 45 91 0 34 171 43 52 6 18 0 17 2
Initial Fut: 207 961 48 69 1084 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 207 961 48 69 1084 175 341 71 188 41 54 18
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 207 961 48 69 1084 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 207 961 48 69 1084 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.71 0.29 2.00 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1750 3524 176 1750 3185 514 3150 493 1307 1750 1350 450 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 23.8 77.8 77.8 14.3 68.3 68.3 21.6 28.9 28.9 7.0 14.3 14.3 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.47 0.39 0.39 Delay/Veh: 61.8 19.2 19.2 60.2 29.0 29.0 60.7 57.2 57.2 68.6 60.2 60.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 61.8 19.2 19.2 60.2 29.0 29.0 60.7 57.2 57.2 68.6 60.2 60.2 LOS by Move: E B B E C C E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 10 13 13 3 21 21 10 12 12 2 3 3
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-11
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (PM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 175 1095*** 69
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
341 2
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 18

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 71*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.692 0 54
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 38.3 0
188 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 35.6 1 41***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 213*** 975 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 162 870 48 35 913 132 289 65 170 41 37 16
Added Vol: 6 14 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 45 91 0 34 171 43 52 6 18 0 17 2
Initial Fut: 213 975 48 69 1095 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 213 975 48 69 1095 175 341 71 188 41 54 18
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 213 975 48 69 1095 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 213 975 48 69 1095 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.72 0.28 2.00 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1750 3526 174 1750 3190 510 3150 493 1307 1750 1350 450 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.2 78.3 78.3 14.2 68.2 68.2 21.4 28.6 28.6 7.0 14.1 14.1 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.47 0.40 0.40 Delay/Veh: 61.9 19.0 19.0 60.3 29.3 29.3 61.1 57.9 57.9 68.6 60.3 60.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 61.9 19.0 19.0 60.3 29.3 29.3 61.1 57.9 57.9 68.6 60.3 60.3 LOS by Move: E B B E C C E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 11 13 13 3 22 22 10 12 12 2 3 3
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-12
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #3836: WILLIAMS/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 175 1113*** 69
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
341 2
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 18

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
1 71*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.707 0 54
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 39.1 0
196 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 36.0 1 41***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 221*** 996 49
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 207 961 48 69 1084 175 341 71 188 41 54 18
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 207 961 48 69 1084 175 341 71 188 41 54 18 Added Vol: 6 14 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 8 21 1 0 18 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 221 996 49 69 1113 175 341 71 196 41 54 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 221 996 49 69 1113 175 341 71 196 41 54 18
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 221 996 49 69 1113 175 341 71 196 41 54 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 221 996 49 69 1113 175 341 71 196 41 54 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.72 0.28 2.00 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.75 0.25 Final Sat.: 1750 3526 173 1750 3197 503 3150 479 1321 1750 1350 450 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.5 78.3 78.3 13.9 67.6 67.6 21.6 28.8 28.8 7.0 14.2 14.2 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.47 0.39 0.39 Delay/Veh: 62.6 19.1 19.1 60.7 30.1 30.1 60.8 58.6 58.6 68.6 60.2 60.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 62.6 19.1 19.1 60.7 30.1 30.1 60.8 58.6 58.6 68.6 60.2 60.2 LOS by Move: E B B E C C E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 11 14 14 3 22 22 10 12 12 2 3 3
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (AM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 64 375 38***
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
227 1
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 56

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 68*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.492 1! 113
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 36.9 0
174 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 38.0 0 132***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 196 877*** 64
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.79 0.21 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.55 0.45 1.00 0.44 0.37 0.19 Final Sat.: 1750 5219 381 1750 5700 1750 2732 818 1750 767 657 326 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 29.0 42.5 42.5 7.0 20.5 41.5 21.0 21.0 50.0 43.5 43.5 43.5 Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.39 0.40 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 43.0 33.5 33.5 60.0 47.5 29.5 48.4 48.4 25.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 43.0 33.5 33.5 60.0 47.5 29.5 48.4 48.4 25.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 LOS by Move: D C C E D C D D C C C C
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 9 9 2 5 2 6 6 5 10 10 10
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (AM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 69 444 39***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
257*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 64

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 68 0 Critical V/C: 0.632 1! 113
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 37.0 0
178 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.5 0 132***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 198 977*** 64
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 2 100 0 1 69 5 30 0 4 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 198 977 64 39 444 69 257 68 178 132 113 64 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 198 977 64 39 444 69 257 68 178 132 113 64
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 198 977 64 39 444 69 257 68 178 132 113 64 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 198 977 64 39 444 69 257 68 178 132 113 64 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.59 0.41 1.00 0.43 0.36 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 3472 227 1750 3202 498 2807 743 1750 748 640 362 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.8 54.8 54.8 7.0 34.0 34.0 17.8 17.8 45.6 34.4 34.4 34.4 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.65 0.65 0.40 0.51 0.51 0.65 0.65 0.28 0.65 0.65 0.65 Delay/Veh: 44.4 28.9 28.9 60.2 39.4 39.4 54.1 54.1 28.8 43.5 43.5 43.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.4 28.9 28.9 60.2 39.4 39.4 54.1 54.1 28.8 43.5 43.5 43.5 LOS by Move: D C C E D D D D C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 16 16 2 9 9 7 7 5 12 12 12
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (AM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 69 457 50***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
263*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 64

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 68 0 Critical V/C: 0.647 1! 113
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 37.4 0
178 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.7 0 132***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 198 997*** 64
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 196 877 64 38 375 64 227 68 174 132 113 56 Added Vol: 0 20 0 11 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 2 100 0 1 69 5 30 0 4 0 0 8
Initial Fut: 198 997 64 50 457 69 263 68 178 132 113 64 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 198 997 64 50 457 69 263 68 178 132 113 64
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 198 997 64 50 457 69 263 68 178 132 113 64 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 198 997 64 50 457 69 263 68 178 132 113 64 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.73 0.27 1.59 0.41 1.00 0.43 0.36 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 3477 223 1750 3214 485 2821 729 1750 748 640 362 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.5 55.1 55.1 7.0 34.6 34.6 17.9 17.9 45.5 33.9 33.9 33.9 Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.28 0.66 0.66 0.66 Delay/Veh: 44.6 28.9 28.9 62.5 39.1 39.1 54.2 54.2 28.9 44.2 44.2 44.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 44.6 28.9 28.9 62.5 39.1 39.1 54.2 54.2 28.9 44.2 44.2 44.2 LOS by Move: D C C E D D D D C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 16 16 3 9 9 8 8 5 12 12 12
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (AM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 72 475 50***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
264*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 65***

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 68 0 Critical V/C: 0.653 1! 113
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 37.4 0
181 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.7 0 132
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 200 1016*** 64
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 198 977 64 39 444 69 257 68 178 132 113 64
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 198 977 64 39 444 69 257 68 178 132 113 64 Added Vol: 0 20 0 11 13 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 2 19 0 0 18 3 1 0 3 0 0 1
Initial Fut: 200 1016 64 50 475 72 264 68 181 132 113 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 200 1016 64 50 475 72 264 68 181 132 113 65 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 200 1016 64 50 475 72 264 68 181 132 113 65 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 200 1016 64 50 475 72 264 68 181 132 113 65 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.73 0.27 1.60 0.40 1.00 0.43 0.36 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 3481 219 1750 3213 487 2823 727 1750 745 638 367 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.18 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.3 55.5 55.5 7.0 35.3 35.3 17.8 17.8 45.0 33.7 33.7 33.7 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.66 0.66 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.66 0.66 0.29 0.66 0.66 0.66 Delay/Veh: 45.1 28.9 28.9 62.5 38.9 38.9 54.6 54.6 29.3 44.6 44.6 44.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 45.1 28.9 28.9 62.5 38.9 38.9 54.6 54.6 29.3 44.6 44.6 44.6 LOS by Move: D C C E D D D D C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 17 17 3 9 9 8 8 5 12 12 12
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-5
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 163 876*** 88
Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
215 1
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 36***

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 91*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.467 1! 73
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 43.0 0
178 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.2 0 73
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 145*** 723 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.81 0.19 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.41 0.59 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.20 Final Sat.: 1750 5251 349 1750 5700 1750 2494 1056 1750 702 702 346 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.9 52.0 52.0 19.0 46.1 72.0 25.9 25.9 50.7 31.2 31.2 31.2 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.28 0.47 0.47 0.47 Delay/Veh: 52.7 35.8 35.8 56.1 37.4 18.3 51.4 51.4 31.9 48.1 48.1 48.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.7 35.8 35.8 56.1 37.4 18.3 51.4 51.4 31.9 48.1 48.1 48.1 LOS by Move: D D D E D B D D C D D D
HCM2kAvgQ: 6 9 9 4 10 4 7 7 6 8 8 8
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-6
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (PM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 187 1033*** 97
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
236*** 1
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 91 0 Critical V/C: 0.671 1! 73***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.1 0
183 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.5 0 73
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 150*** 837 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 5 114 0 9 157 24 21 0 5 0 0 3
Initial Fut: 150 837 48 97 1033 187 236 91 183 73 73 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 150 837 48 97 1033 187 236 91 183 73 73 39
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 150 837 48 97 1033 187 236 91 183 73 73 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 150 837 48 97 1033 187 236 91 183 73 73 39 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.68 0.32 1.45 0.55 1.00 0.40 0.39 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 3499 201 1750 3132 567 2562 988 1750 691 691 369 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.9 70.4 70.4 16.3 68.8 68.8 19.2 19.2 37.1 22.1 22.1 22.1 Volume/Cap: 0.67 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.39 0.67 0.67 0.67 Delay/Veh: 65.9 28.5 28.5 59.6 28.0 28.0 61.0 61.0 42.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 65.9 28.5 28.5 59.6 28.0 28.0 61.0 61.0 42.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 LOS by Move: E C C E C C E E D E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 15 15 5 20 20 8 8 7 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-7
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (PM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 187 1052*** 108
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
242 1
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 91*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.678 1! 73***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.2 0
183 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.8 0 73
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 150*** 857 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 145 723 48 88 876 163 215 91 178 73 73 36
Added Vol: 0 20 0 11 19 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 5 114 0 9 157 24 21 0 5 0 0 3
Initial Fut: 150 857 48 108 1052 187 242 91 183 73 73 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 150 857 48 108 1052 187 242 91 183 73 73 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 150 857 48 108 1052 187 242 91 183 73 73 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 150 857 48 108 1052 187 242 91 183 73 73 39 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.69 0.31 1.46 0.54 1.00 0.40 0.39 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 3504 196 1750 3141 558 2580 970 1750 691 691 369 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.7 69.3 69.3 17.5 69.1 69.1 19.4 19.4 37.1 21.8 21.8 21.8 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.40 0.68 0.68 0.68 Delay/Veh: 66.6 29.4 29.4 58.9 28.0 28.0 61.2 61.2 42.8 62.5 62.5 62.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 66.6 29.4 29.4 58.9 28.0 28.0 61.2 61.2 42.8 62.5 62.5 62.5 LOS by Move: E C C E C C E E D E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 15 15 5 21 21 8 8 7 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-8
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #3737: PAYNE/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 191 1076*** 109
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
243 1
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

1 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 91*** 0 Critical V/C: 0.688 1! 73***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 40.3 0
187 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 37.8 0 73
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 152*** 873 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 150 837 48 97 1033 187 236 91 183 73 73 39
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 150 837 48 97 1033 187 236 91 183 73 73 39 Added Vol: 0 20 0 11 19 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 2 16 0 1 24 4 1 0 4 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 152 873 48 109 1076 191 243 91 187 73 73 39 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 152 873 48 109 1076 191 243 91 187 73 73 39 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 152 873 48 109 1076 191 243 91 187 73 73 39 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 152 873 48 109 1076 191 243 91 187 73 73 39 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.69 0.31 1.46 0.54 1.00 0.40 0.39 0.21 Final Sat.: 1750 3507 193 1750 3142 558 2583 967 1750 691 691 369 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 17.7 69.9 69.9 17.5 69.7 69.7 19.1 19.1 36.8 21.5 21.5 21.5 Volume/Cap: 0.69 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.41 0.69 0.69 0.69 Delay/Veh: 67.3 29.2 29.2 59.0 28.0 28.0 61.7 61.7 43.2 63.4 63.4 63.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 67.3 29.2 29.2 59.0 28.0 28.0 61.7 61.7 43.2 63.4 63.4 63.4 LOS by Move: E C C E C C E E D E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 7 15 15 5 21 21 8 8 7 9 9 9
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (AM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 28 647 24***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
59 0
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 45

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1*** 1! Critical V/C: 0.470 1! 4***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.0 0
39 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.7 0 37
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 51 1163*** 31
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 0.60 0.01 0.39 0.43 0.05 0.52 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 5367 232 1043 18 689 753 81 916 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 27.3 79.5 79.5 7.0 59.2 59.2 14.7 14.7 14.7 12.8 12.8 12.8 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.48 0.03 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 Delay/Veh: 40.0 12.5 8.7 58.3 20.2 20.2 53.9 53.9 53.9 55.6 55.6 55.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.0 12.5 8.7 58.3 20.2 20.2 53.9 53.9 53.9 55.6 55.6 55.6 LOS by Move: D B A E C C D D D E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 11 0 1 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (AM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 28 720 24***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
71 0
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 45

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1*** 1! Critical V/C: 0.523 1! 4***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.2 0
39 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.9 0 37
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 51 1252*** 31
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 89 0 0 73 0 12 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 51 1252 31 24 720 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 51 1252 31 24 720 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 1252 31 24 720 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 51 1252 31 24 720 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.64 0.01 0.35 0.43 0.05 0.52 Final Sat.: 1750 3611 89 1750 3561 138 1119 16 615 753 81 916 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.9 80.8 80.8 7.0 68.9 68.9 14.8 14.8 14.8 11.4 11.4 11.4 Volume/Cap: 0.19 0.54 0.54 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Delay/Veh: 47.2 12.7 12.7 58.3 16.4 16.4 55.3 55.3 55.3 58.5 58.5 58.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.2 12.7 12.7 58.3 16.4 16.4 55.3 55.3 55.3 58.5 58.5 58.5 LOS by Move: D B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 13 13 1 8 8 5 5 5 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (AM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 28 733 24***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
71 0
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 45

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1*** 1! Critical V/C: 0.529 1! 4***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.1 0
39 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.8 0 37
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 51 1272*** 31
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 1163 31 24 647 28 59 1 39 37 4 45
Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 89 0 0 73 0 12 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 51 1272 31 24 733 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 51 1272 31 24 733 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 1272 31 24 733 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 51 1272 31 24 733 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.64 0.01 0.35 0.43 0.05 0.52 Final Sat.: 1750 3612 88 1750 3564 136 1119 16 615 753 81 916 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.7 81.1 81.1 7.0 69.4 69.4 14.6 14.6 14.6 11.3 11.3 11.3 Volume/Cap: 0.20 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 47.4 12.6 12.6 58.3 16.1 16.1 55.7 55.7 55.7 58.9 58.9 58.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 47.4 12.6 12.6 58.3 16.1 16.1 55.7 55.7 55.7 58.9 58.9 58.9 LOS by Move: D B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 14 14 1 8 8 5 5 5 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (AM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 28 754 24***
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
72*** 0
Cycle Time (sec): 126
0 45

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1 1! Critical V/C: 0.536 1! 4***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 19.1 0
39 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.8 0 37
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 62 1293*** 31
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 51 1252 31 24 720 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 1252 31 24 720 28 71 1 39 37 4 45
Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 11 21 0 0 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 62 1293 31 24 754 28 72 1 39 37 4 45
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 62 1293 31 24 754 28 72 1 39 37 4 45
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 62 1293 31 24 754 28 72 1 39 37 4 45
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 62 1293 31 24 754 28 72 1 39 37 4 45
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.93 0.07 0.64 0.01 0.35 0.43 0.05 0.52 Final Sat.: 1750 3613 87 1750 3567 132 1125 16 609 753 81 916 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 18.4 81.3 81.3 7.0 69.9 69.9 14.5 14.5 14.5 11.2 11.2 11.2 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.38 0.38 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 48.1 12.6 12.6 58.3 15.9 15.9 56.0 56.0 56.0 59.4 59.4 59.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 48.1 12.6 12.6 58.3 15.9 15.9 56.0 56.0 56.0 59.4 59.4 59.4 LOS by Move: D B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 2 14 14 1 8 8 5 5 5 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-13
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 51 1055 46***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
59 0
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 3*** 1! Critical V/C: 0.396 1! 5***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 23.8 0
33 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 22.9 0 36
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 91 896*** 54
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.86 0.14 0.62 0.03 0.35 0.45 0.06 0.49 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 1750 5341 258 1087 55 608 788 109 853 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.24 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 19.3 83.4 83.4 9.3 73.3 73.3 19.2 19.2 19.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.40 0.05 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Delay/Veh: 55.9 15.1 11.8 64.9 19.9 19.9 56.2 56.2 56.2 58.7 58.7 58.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 55.9 15.1 11.8 64.9 19.9 19.9 56.2 56.2 56.2 58.7 58.7 58.7 LOS by Move: E B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 10 1 2 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-14
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (PM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 51 1217*** 46
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
66*** 0
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 3 1! Critical V/C: 0.545 1! 5***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 23.7 0
33 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.6 0 36
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 91*** 1008 54
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 112 0 0 162 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 91 1008 54 46 1217 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 91 1008 54 46 1217 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 91 1008 54 46 1217 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 91 1008 54 46 1217 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.65 0.03 0.32 0.45 0.06 0.49 Final Sat.: 1750 3512 188 1750 3551 149 1132 51 566 788 109 853 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.3 86.3 86.3 15.0 88.0 88.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 11.7 11.7 11.7 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.47 0.47 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 64.2 14.6 14.6 58.0 15.0 15.0 62.6 62.6 62.6 65.8 65.8 65.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.2 14.6 14.6 58.0 15.0 15.0 62.6 62.6 62.6 65.8 65.8 65.8 LOS by Move: E B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 12 12 2 15 15 5 5 5 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-15
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (PM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 51 1236*** 46
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
66*** 0
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 3 1! Critical V/C: 0.551 1! 5***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 23.6 0
33 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.5 0 36
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 91*** 1028 54
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 91 896 54 46 1055 51 59 3 33 36 5 39
Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 112 0 0 162 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 91 1028 54 46 1236 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 91 1028 54 46 1236 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 91 1028 54 46 1236 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 91 1028 54 46 1236 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.65 0.03 0.32 0.45 0.06 0.49 Final Sat.: 1750 3515 185 1750 3553 147 1132 51 566 788 109 853 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 13.2 86.7 86.7 14.8 88.4 88.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 11.6 11.6 11.6 Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.47 0.47 0.25 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Delay/Veh: 64.5 14.5 14.5 58.2 14.9 14.9 63.0 63.0 63.0 66.2 66.2 66.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.5 14.5 14.5 58.2 14.9 14.9 63.0 63.0 63.0 66.2 66.2 66.2 LOS by Move: E B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 12 12 2 15 15 5 5 5 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-16
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #3882: DAVID/WINCHESTER
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 51 1265*** 46
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Split Signal=Split

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
67 0
Cycle Time (sec): 140
0 39

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 3*** 1! Critical V/C: 0.567 1! 5***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 24.2 0
33 0 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 20.7 0 36
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 101*** 1045 54
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 91 1008 54 46 1217 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 91 1008 54 46 1217 51 66 3 33 36 5 39
Added Vol: 0 20 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 10 17 0 0 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 101 1045 54 46 1265 51 67 3 33 36 5 39
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 101 1045 54 46 1265 51 67 3 33 36 5 39
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 101 1045 54 46 1265 51 67 3 33 36 5 39
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 101 1045 54 46 1265 51 67 3 33 36 5 39
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 1.90 0.10 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.65 0.03 0.32 0.45 0.06 0.49 Final Sat.: 1750 3518 182 1750 3557 143 1138 51 561 788 109 853 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 14.3 87.4 87.4 14.7 87.9 87.9 14.5 14.5 14.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.25 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Delay/Veh: 64.1 14.2 14.2 58.3 15.4 15.4 63.9 63.9 63.9 67.3 67.3 67.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 64.1 14.2 14.2 58.3 15.4 15.4 63.9 63.9 63.9 67.3 67.3 67.3 LOS by Move: E B B E B B E E E E E E
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 12 12 2 16 16 5 5 5 4 4 4
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (AM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 115 397 428***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 4/24/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
133 2
Cycle Time (sec): 138
1 531

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 612*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.599 3 1026
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.8 0
112 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 40.0 2 446***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 101 617*** 331
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 24 Apr 2018 <<
Base Vol: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.18 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.4 37.4 70.0 31.3 44.2 56.8 12.6 24.7 49.2 32.6 44.7 76.0 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.60 0.37 0.60 0.33 0.16 0.46 0.60 0.18 0.60 0.56 0.55 Delay/Veh: 50.2 44.8 20.9 49.2 35.7 25.6 60.7 53.1 30.7 48.2 38.8 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.2 44.8 20.9 49.2 35.7 25.6 60.7 53.1 30.7 48.2 38.8 20.7 LOS by Move: D D C D D C E D C D D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 12 9 10 6 3 4 9 3 10 12 15
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (AM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 128 430 491***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 4/24/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
157 2
Cycle Time (sec): 138
1 560

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 638*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.648 3 1035
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.9 0
113 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 41.1 2 457***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 101 678*** 344
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 24 Apr 2018 <<
Base Vol: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 61 13 63 33 13 24 26 1 11 9 29
Initial Fut: 101 678 344 491 430 128 157 638 113 457 1035 560 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 101 678 344 491 430 128 157 638 113 457 1035 560 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 101 678 344 491 430 128 157 638 113 457 1035 560 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 101 678 344 491 430 128 157 638 113 457 1035 560 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.18 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.1 38.0 68.9 33.2 47.2 59.1 12.0 23.9 47.9 30.9 42.8 76.0 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.65 0.39 0.65 0.33 0.17 0.58 0.65 0.19 0.65 0.59 0.58 Delay/Veh: 50.6 45.5 21.8 49.1 33.9 24.4 63.6 54.7 31.6 50.7 40.6 21.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.6 45.5 21.8 49.1 33.9 24.4 63.6 54.7 31.6 50.7 40.6 21.4 LOS by Move: D D C D C C E D C D D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 13 10 11 6 3 5 9 4 11 12 17
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (AM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 129 431 502***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 4/24/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
159 2
Cycle Time (sec): 138
1 577

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 638*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.652 3 1035
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 50.0 0
113 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 41.2 2 457***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 101 680*** 344
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 24 Apr 2018 <<
Base Vol: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 617 331 428 397 115 133 612 112 446 1026 531 Added Vol: 0 2 0 11 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 17
ATI: 0 61 13 63 33 13 24 26 1 11 9 29
Initial Fut: 101 680 344 502 431 129 159 638 113 457 1035 577 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 101 680 344 502 431 129 159 638 113 457 1035 577 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 101 680 344 502 431 129 159 638 113 457 1035 577 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 101 680 344 502 431 129 159 638 113 457 1035 577 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.18 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.18 0.33 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.1 37.9 68.6 33.7 47.5 59.3 11.9 23.7 47.8 30.7 42.5 76.2 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.65 0.40 0.65 0.33 0.17 0.59 0.65 0.19 0.65 0.59 0.60 Delay/Veh: 50.5 45.7 22.0 48.9 33.7 24.3 64.0 54.9 31.6 51.0 40.9 21.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.5 45.7 22.0 48.9 33.7 24.3 64.0 54.9 31.6 51.0 40.9 21.6 LOS by Move: D D C D C C E D C D D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 13 10 11 6 3 5 9 4 11 12 17
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (AM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 132 434 525***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 4/24/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
159 2
Cycle Time (sec): 138
1 604

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 648*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.667 3 1047
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 50.5 0
113 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 41.4 2 469***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 101 683*** 354
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 24 Apr 2018 <<
Base Vol: 101 678 344 491 430 128 157 638 113 457 1035 560 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 678 344 491 430 128 157 638 113 457 1035 560 Added Vol: 0 2 0 11 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 17
ATI: 0 3 10 23 3 3 0 10 0 12 12 27
Initial Fut: 101 683 354 525 434 132 159 648 113 469 1047 604 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 101 683 354 525 434 132 159 648 113 469 1047 604 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 101 683 354 525 434 132 159 648 113 469 1047 604 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 101 683 354 525 434 132 159 648 113 469 1047 604 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.15 0.18 0.35 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 24.1 37.2 68.0 34.5 47.6 59.4 11.8 23.5 47.6 30.8 42.6 77.1 Volume/Cap: 0.33 0.67 0.41 0.67 0.33 0.18 0.59 0.67 0.19 0.67 0.60 0.62 Delay/Veh: 50.6 46.6 22.6 48.8 33.6 24.3 64.3 55.4 31.8 51.4 41.0 21.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.6 46.6 22.6 48.8 33.6 24.3 64.3 55.4 31.8 51.4 41.0 21.8 LOS by Move: D D C D C C E E C D D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 4 14 10 12 6 4 5 10 4 11 12 18
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-1
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 178 646 432***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 12/13/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
173 2
Cycle Time (sec): 166
1 481

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 961*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.603 3 959
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 56.9 0
176 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 47.7 2 393***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 162 490*** 301
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 13 Dec 2018 << 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Base Vol: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.05 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 25.8 35.5 69.8 37.8 47.4 67.3 19.9 46.4 72.2 34.3 60.9 98.6 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.60 0.41 0.60 0.60 0.25 0.46 0.60 0.23 0.60 0.46 0.46 Delay/Veh: 68.8 60.2 34.0 58.9 51.9 32.9 68.9 52.5 29.6 61.3 40.2 19.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 68.8 60.2 34.0 58.9 51.9 32.9 68.9 52.5 29.6 61.3 40.2 19.2 LOS by Move: E E C E D C E D C E D B
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 12 11 12 14 6 5 14 6 10 11 14
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-2
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (PM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 212 721 524***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 12/13/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
200 2
Cycle Time (sec): 166
1 526

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 988*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.662 3 985
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 58.9 0
177 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.2 2 413***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 164 544*** 312
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 13 Dec 2018 << 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Base Vol: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 2 54 11 92 75 34 27 27 1 20 26 45
Initial Fut: 164 544 312 524 721 212 200 988 177 413 985 526 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 164 544 312 524 721 212 200 988 177 413 985 526 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 164 544 312 524 721 212 200 988 177 413 985 526 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 164 544 312 524 721 212 200 988 177 413 985 526 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.30 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 25.7 35.9 68.8 41.7 52.0 72.5 20.5 43.5 69.1 32.9 55.8 97.6 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0.66 0.43 0.66 0.61 0.28 0.51 0.66 0.24 0.66 0.51 0.51 Delay/Veh: 69.4 61.5 35.0 57.9 49.2 30.2 69.2 55.8 31.6 64.1 44.4 20.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.4 61.5 35.0 57.9 49.2 30.2 69.2 55.8 31.6 64.1 44.4 20.6 LOS by Move: E E D E D C E E C E D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 13 12 14 15 7 6 15 6 11 12 16
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-3
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (PM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 214 723 539***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 12/13/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
202 2
Cycle Time (sec): 166
1 543

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 988*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.667 3 985
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 59.1 0
177 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.3 2 413***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 164 546*** 312
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 13 Dec 2018 << 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Base Vol: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 162 490 301 432 646 178 173 961 176 393 959 481 Added Vol: 0 2 0 15 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 17
ATI: 2 54 11 92 75 34 27 27 1 20 26 45
Initial Fut: 164 546 312 539 723 214 202 988 177 413 985 543 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 164 546 312 539 723 214 202 988 177 413 985 543 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 164 546 312 539 723 214 202 988 177 413 985 543 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 164 546 312 539 723 214 202 988 177 413 985 543 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.31 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 25.8 35.7 68.3 42.6 52.5 72.9 20.5 43.1 68.9 32.6 55.2 97.8 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.67 0.43 0.67 0.60 0.28 0.52 0.67 0.24 0.67 0.52 0.53 Delay/Veh: 69.1 61.8 35.4 57.5 48.8 29.9 69.4 56.2 31.7 64.5 44.9 20.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.1 61.8 35.4 57.5 48.8 29.9 69.4 56.2 31.7 64.5 44.9 20.8 LOS by Move: E E D E D C E E C E D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 13 12 14 15 7 6 15 6 11 13 17
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-4
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #102: Winchester/Hamilton
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 220 726 572***
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 2

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 12/13/2018 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:
203 2
Cycle Time (sec): 166
1 564

0 Loss Time (sec): 12
0 1002*** 3 Critical V/C: 0.685 3 994
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 59.7 0
177 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 49.6 2 422***
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1
Final Vol: 164 549*** 326
Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Street Name: Winchester Hamilton
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 13 Dec 2018 << 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Base Vol: 164 544 312 524 721 212 200 988 177 413 985 526 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 164 544 312 524 721 212 200 988 177 413 985 526 Added Vol: 0 2 0 15 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 17
ATI: 0 3 14 33 3 6 1 14 0 9 9 21
Initial Fut: 164 549 326 572 726 220 203 1002 177 422 994 564 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 164 549 326 572 726 220 203 1002 177 422 994 564 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 164 549 326 572 726 220 203 1002 177 422 994 564 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 164 549 326 572 726 220 203 1002 177 422 994 564 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.83 1.00 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 3800 1750 3150 3800 1750 3150 5700 1750 3150 5700 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 26.0 35.0 67.4 44.0 53.0 73.2 20.2 42.6 68.6 32.4 54.8 98.8 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.69 0.46 0.69 0.60 0.28 0.53 0.69 0.24 0.69 0.53 0.54 Delay/Veh: 68.8 62.9 36.4 57.2 48.4 29.9 69.8 57.0 32.0 65.3 45.4 20.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 68.8 62.9 36.4 57.2 48.4 29.9 69.8 57.0 32.0 65.3 45.4 20.7 LOS by Move: E E D E D C E E C E D C
HCM2kAvgQ: 9 14 13 15 15 7 6 16 6 11 13 17
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (AM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 1 438 23
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 67

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.143 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.1 0
5 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 0 0
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 81 1132 13
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 439 xxxx xxxxx 1145 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 147 xxxx xxxx 573 Potent Cap.: 1132 xxxx xxxxx 618 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 880 xxxx xxxx 468 Move Cap.: 1132 xxxx xxxxx 618 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 880 xxxx xxxx 468 Volume/Cap: 0.07 xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.14 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx 0.5 Control Del: 8.4 xxxx xxxxx 11.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.1 xxxxx xxxx 14.0 LOS by Move: A * * B * * * * A * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.1 14.0
ApproachLOS: * * A B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (AM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 1 513 23
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 67

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.159 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.0 0
5 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.0 0 0
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 81 1270 13
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 138 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 81 1270 13 23 513 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 81 1270 13 23 513 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 81 1270 13 23 513 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 514 xxxx xxxxx 1283 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 257 xxxx xxxx 642 Potent Cap.: 1062 xxxx xxxxx 548 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 748 xxxx xxxx 422 Move Cap.: 1062 xxxx xxxxx 548 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 748 xxxx xxxx 422 Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.16 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx 0.6 Control Del: 8.7 xxxx xxxxx 11.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxx 15.1 LOS by Move: A * * B * * * * A * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.8 15.1
ApproachLOS: * * A C
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (AM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 1 524 23
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 67

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.160 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.1 0
5 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 0 0
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 94 1284 13
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 81 1132 13 23 438 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Added Vol: 13 14 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 138 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 94 1284 13 23 524 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 94 1284 13 23 524 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 94 1284 13 23 524 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 525 xxxx xxxxx 1297 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 263 xxxx xxxx 649 Potent Cap.: 1052 xxxx xxxxx 541 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 742 xxxx xxxx 418 Move Cap.: 1052 xxxx xxxxx 541 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 742 xxxx xxxx 418 Volume/Cap: 0.09 xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.16 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx 0.6 Control Del: 8.8 xxxx xxxxx 12.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.9 xxxxx xxxx 15.3 LOS by Move: A * * B * * * * A * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.9 15.3
ApproachLOS: * * A C
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:25:31 2020 Page 31-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (AM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 1 545 23
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 67

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.163 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 1.1 0
5 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 0 0
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 94 1305 13
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 81 1270 13 23 513 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 81 1270 13 23 513 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Added Vol: 13 14 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 21 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 94 1305 13 23 545 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 94 1305 13 23 545 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 94 1305 13 23 545 1 0 0 5 0 0 67
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 546 xxxx xxxxx 1318 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 273 xxxx xxxx 659 Potent Cap.: 1033 xxxx xxxxx 531 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 731 xxxx xxxx 411 Move Cap.: 1033 xxxx xxxxx 531 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 731 xxxx xxxx 411 Volume/Cap: 0.09 xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 xxxx xxxx 0.16 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxx 0.6 Control Del: 8.8 xxxx xxxxx 12.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.0 xxxxx xxxx 15.5 LOS by Move: A * * B * * * * A * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.0 15.5
ApproachLOS: * * A C
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-17
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing (PM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 3 1076 82
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 34

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.112 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0
15 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 0 0
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 45 928 21
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1079 xxxx xxxxx 949 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 360 xxxx xxxx 475 Potent Cap.: 654 xxxx xxxxx 732 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 642 xxxx xxxx 542 Move Cap.: 654 xxxx xxxxx 732 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 642 xxxx xxxx 542 Volume/Cap: 0.07 xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 xxxx xxxx 0.06 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.2 xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del: 10.9 xxxx xxxxx 10.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 10.7 xxxxx xxxx 12.1 LOS by Move: B * * B * * * * B * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.7 12.1
ApproachLOS: * * B B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-18
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background (PM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 3 1266 82
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 34

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.126 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.8 0
15 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 0 0
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 45 1066 21
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 138 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 45 1066 21 82 1266 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 45 1066 21 82 1266 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 45 1066 21 82 1266 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1269 xxxx xxxxx 1087 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 635 xxxx xxxx 544 Potent Cap.: 554 xxxx xxxxx 649 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 426 xxxx xxxx 489 Move Cap.: 554 xxxx xxxxx 649 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 426 xxxx xxxx 489 Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx 0.07 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del: 12.1 xxxx xxxxx 11.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 13.8 xxxxx xxxx 12.9 LOS by Move: B * * B * * * * B * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.8 12.9
ApproachLOS: * * B B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-19
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background+Project (PM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 3 1277 82
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 34

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.128 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0
15 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 0 0
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 64 1085 21
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 45 928 21 82 1076 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Added Vol: 19 19 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 138 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 64 1085 21 82 1277 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 1085 21 82 1277 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 64 1085 21 82 1277 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1280 xxxx xxxxx 1106 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 640 xxxx xxxx 553 Potent Cap.: 549 xxxx xxxxx 639 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 423 xxxx xxxx 482 Move Cap.: 549 xxxx xxxxx 639 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 423 xxxx xxxx 482 Volume/Cap: 0.12 xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx 0.07 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del: 12.4 xxxx xxxxx 11.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 13.8 xxxxx xxxx 13.0 LOS by Move: B * * B * * * * B * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.8 13.0
ApproachLOS: * * B B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Tue Jun 16 14:26:15 2020 Page 31-20
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., Gilroy City of San Jose
Winchester Hotel
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Cumulative+Project (PM)
Intersection #9001: Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 3 1306 82
Lanes: 0 1 1 0 1

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 11/19/2019 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:
0 0
Cycle Time (sec): 100
1 34

0 Loss Time (sec): 0
0 0 0 Critical V/C: 0.130 0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.9 0
15 1 Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.9 0 0
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 64 1102 21
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 19 Nov 2019 <<
Base Vol: 45 1066 21 82 1266 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 45 1066 21 82 1266 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Added Vol: 19 19 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ATI: 0 17 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 64 1102 21 82 1306 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 64 1102 21 82 1306 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 64 1102 21 82 1306 3 0 0 15 0 0 34
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 1309 xxxx xxxxx 1123 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 655 xxxx xxxx 562 Potent Cap.: 535 xxxx xxxxx 629 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 414 xxxx xxxx 476 Move Cap.: 535 xxxx xxxxx 629 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 414 xxxx xxxx 476 Volume/Cap: 0.12 xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.04 xxxx xxxx 0.07 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.4 xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxx 0.2 Control Del: 12.6 xxxx xxxxx 11.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 14.0 xxxxx xxxx 13.1 LOS by Move: B * * B * * * * B * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.0 13.1
ApproachLOS: * * B B
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Appendix F
Queue Length Calculations
Winchester/Payne Winchester/Payne Winchester/Payne

SBL SBL SBL

AM AM AM
Existing Conditions Background Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 1.3 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 1.4 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 1.8 Percentile = 95% 3 Percentile = 95% 3 Percentile = 95% 4 Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles

0.2645 0.2645 0 0.2554 0.2554 0 0.1738 0.1738 0

0.3518 0.6162 1 0.3486 0.6040 1 0.3041 0.4779 1

0.2339 0.8501 2 0.2379 0.8419 2 0.2661 0.7440 2

0.1037 0.9539 3 0.1083 0.9501 3 0.1552 0.8992 3

0.0345 0.9883 4 0.0369 0.9871 4 0.0679 0.9671 4

0.0092 0.9975 5 0.0101 0.9972 5 0.0238 0.9909 5

0.0020 0.9995 6 0.0023 0.9995 6 0.0069 0.9978 6

0.0004 0.9999 7 0.0004 0.9999 7 0.0017 0.9995 7

0.0001 1.0000 8 0.0001 1.0000 8 0.0004 0.9999 8

0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0001 1.0000 9

0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10

0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11

0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65
M1 3/6/2020
Winchester/Payne Winchester/Payne Winchester/Payne

SBL SBL SBL

PM PM PM
Existing Conditions Background Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 3.4 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 3.8 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 4.2 Percentile = 95% 7 Percentile = 95% 7 Percentile = 95% 8 Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles

0.0326 0.0326 0 0.0230 0.0230 0 0.0150 0.0150 0

0.1117 0.1443 1 0.0868 0.1098 1 0.0630 0.0780 1

0.1911 0.3355 2 0.1636 0.2734 2 0.1323 0.2102 2

0.2180 0.5535 3 0.2058 0.4792 3 0.1852 0.3954 3

0.1865 0.7400 4 0.1941 0.6732 4 0.1944 0.5898 4

0.1277 0.8677 5 0.1464 0.8196 5 0.1633 0.7531 5

0.0728 0.9405 6 0.0920 0.9117 6 0.1143 0.8675 6

0.0356 0.9761 7 0.0496 0.9613 7 0.0686 0.9361 7

0.0152 0.9914 8 0.0234 0.9847 8 0.0360 0.9721 8

0.0058 0.9972 9 0.0098 0.9945 9 0.0168 0.9889 9

0.0020 0.9991 10 0.0037 0.9982 10 0.0071 0.9959 10

0.0006 0.9998 11 0.0013 0.9994 11 0.0027 0.9986 11

0.0002 0.9999 12 0.0004 0.9998 12 0.0009 0.9996 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0001 1.0000 13 0.0003 0.9999 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0001 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65
M2 3/6/2020
Winchester/Fireside Winchester/Fireside Winchester/Fireside

NBL NBL NBL

AM AM AM
Existing Conditions Background Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.2 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.2 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.2 Percentile = 95% 1 Percentile = 95% 1 Percentile = 95% 1 Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles

0.8278 0.8278 0 0.8222 0.8222 0 0.7947 0.7947 0

0.1565 0.9842 1 0.1609 0.9832 1 0.1826 0.9773 1

0.0148 0.9990 2 0.0158 0.9989 2 0.0210 0.9983 2

0.0009 1.0000 3 0.0010 0.9999 3 0.0016 0.9999 3

0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0001 1.0000 4 0.0001 1.0000 4

0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5

0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6

0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7

0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8

0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9

0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10

0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11

0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65
M3 3/6/2020
Winchester/Fireside Winchester/Fireside Winchester/Fireside

NBL NBL NBL

PM PM PM
Existing Conditions Background Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.1 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.2 Avg. Queue Per Lane in Veh= 0.2 Percentile = 95% 1 Percentile = 95% 1 Percentile = 95% 1 Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles
Individual
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Number of
Queued
Vehicles

0.8726 0.8726 0 0.8596 0.8596 0 0.8022 0.8022 0

0.1189 0.9915 1 0.1300 0.9897 1 0.1768 0.9790 1

0.0081 0.9996 2 0.0098 0.9995 2 0.0195 0.9985 2

0.0004 1.0000 3 0.0005 1.0000 3 0.0014 0.9999 3

0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0001 1.0000 4

0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5

0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6

0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7

0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8

0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9

0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10

0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11

0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65 0.0000 1.0000 65
M4 3/6/2020
Appendix G
Signal Warrant
Check
Winchester Hotel
5 . Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive
Source: Figure 4C-3 of the Manual on Unifrom Traffic Control and Devices (MUTCD) from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). * 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Winchester Boulevard 1688 1901 1939 1981 Minor Street - Highest Approach Fireside Drive 67 67 67 67 Maximum warrant threshold for minor street volume 109 100 100 100 Difference between warrant threshold & minor street volume 42 33 33 33 No No No No
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Winchester Boulevard 2155 2483 2532 2578 Minor Street - Highest Approach Fireside Drive 34 34 34 34 Maximum warrant threshold for minor street volume 100 100 100 100 Difference between warrant threshold & minor street volume 66 66 66 66 No No No NoCumulative Plus Project AM
X
X
Warrant Met?
Approach
Lanes
Existing PMBackground PMBackground Plus Project PMCumulative Plus Project PM Approach
Lanes
Existing AMBackground AM
Warrant Met?
Background Plus Project AM
X
X
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
400500600700800900
100011001200130014001500160017001800

MINOR STREET - HIGHER-VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)

MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
MUTCD PEAK-HOUR VOLUME SIGNAL WARRANT - WARRANT 3
(Urban Areas)
Existing AM
Background AM
Background Plus
Project AM
Cumulative Plus
Project AM
Existing PM
Background PM
Background Plus
Project PM
Cumulative Plus
Project PM
2 or more lanes (major) & 2 or more lanes (minor)
2 or more lanes (major) & 1 lane (minor) or
1 lane (major) & 2 or more lanes (minor)
1 lane (major) & 1 lane (minor)
6/16/2020

APPENDIX I

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

1212 South Winchester Hotel
Development
Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
Prepared for:

Visrael 26, LLC.

January 27, 2021
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 8070 Santa Teresa Boulevard, Suite 230
Gilroy, CA 95020
Hexagon Job Number: 19RD24
Phone: 408.846.7410

1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2. Existing Transportation Facilities ............................................................................................ 5

3. TDM Plan ............................................................................................................................. 10 List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Site Location .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 Existing Transit Facilities .................................................................................................... 9 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1

1. Introduction
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single–occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution problems. The purpose of TDM is to (1) reduce the amount of trips generated by new development; (2) promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed to maximize the potential for sustainable transportation usage; (3) reduce the parking demand generated by new development and allow for a reduction in parking supply; and (4) establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to guarantee the desired trip and parking reductions are achieved.

This TDM plan has been prepared for the proposed hotel development located at 1212-1224 S.

Winchester Boulevard to satisfy the requirements outlined in Section 20.90.220 of the San Jose Code of Ordinances. The ordinance allows developments to use up to a maximum of 50 percent parking reduction, so long as the following requirements are met:
 The reduction in parking will not adversely affect surrounding projects  The reduction in parking will not rely upon or reduce the public parking supply  The project provides a detailed TDM plan and demonstrates that the TDM program can be maintained indefinitely
This TDM Plan addresses the requirements of the City’s ordinance and includes TDM measures designed to reduce the trips and parking demand of guests and visitors. The TDM plan includes the following measures:
 Bicycle parking
 On-site bicycles for guest use
 Guest Shuttle services
 On-site access to car-share vehicles for hotel employees and guests  On-site paid parking
 Free annual VTA Smart Pass for employees
 Financial Incentives for employees who bike or walk to work  On-site TDM coordinator and services
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 2
Project Description
The project site is located along the east side of Winchester Boulevard, approximately 450 feet north of Payne Avenue and within a designated Urban Village (Winchester Boulevard). According to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, an Urban Village strategy fosters:
 Mixed residential and employment activities that are attractive to an innovative workforce  Revitalization of underutilized properties that have access to existing infrastructure  Densities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking  High-quality urban design
As proposed, the development would consist of the replacement of two single-family homes on-site with a 119-room hotel providing a total of 66 parking spaces. Access to and from the project site would be provided via one right-in/right-out driveway along Winchester Boulevard. The project site location and the surrounding study area are shown on Figure 1. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

Based on the City’s parking code requirements, the project would need to provide 129 off-street parking spaces before any reductions. However, the project is located in the Winchester Urban Village. The Urban Village Overlay automatically allows for a 20 percent reduction in parking. With the 20 percent reduction, the required parking would be reduced to 104 spaces. The project is proposing a total of 66 parking spaces, which would not meet the City’s reduced parking requirements.

The proposed number of parking spaces represent a 48.8% reduction from the standard required number of spaces. With the 20% Urban Village reduction, the project requires an additional 28.8% reduction in on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the project will need to submit and have approved a TDM plan. The TDM plan will need to include at least three TDM measures specified in Subsections c and d of Section 20.90.220.A.1.

Location and Proximity to Transit
The location of a project within an urban village promotes pedestrian and bicycle travel in a highdensity area of complementary land uses.

The project site is located approximately 1.4 miles from the Hamilton LRT Station, at the interchange of SR 17 and Hamilton Avenue, which connects to the San Jose Diridon Station.

Several VTA local and express route bus stops are located within walking distance of the project site. Chapter 2 describes the existing transit services in the study area.

Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into two chapters. Chapter 2 describes the transportation facilities and services in the vicinity of the project site. Chapter 3 describes the TDM measures that would be implemented for the proposed project, including the program for implementing and monitoring the TDM plan.
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 3
880
280
Payne Ave Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave Winchester Blvd Winchester Blvd
17 San Tomas Expressway San Tomas Expressway
Fireside Dr
= Project Site Location
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
= Winchester Boulevard
Urban Village Boundary
Figure 1
Project Site Location
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 4
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 5

2. Existing Transportation Facilities
This chapter describes the existing conditions for all of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via SR 17 and I-280. These facilities are described below.

SR 17 is a six-lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. It extends from Santa Cruz to I-280 in San Jose, at which point it makes a transition to I-880 to Oakland. Access to the site is provided via its interchange with Hamilton Avenue.

I-280 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. It extends northwest to San Francisco and east to King Road in San Jose, at which point it makes a transition to I-680 to Oakland. North of I880, I-280 has high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in both directions. Access to and from northbound I-280 to the site is provided via its interchange with Winchester Boulevard and via SR 17 to Hamilton Avenue.

Local access to the site is provided by Winchester Boulevard, Moorpark Avenue, Williams Road, Payne Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, San Tomas Expressway, and Eden Avenue. These roadways are described below.

Winchester Boulevard is a divided six-lane north-south roadway that runs from Los Gatos to Lincoln Street in Santa Clara. In the project vicinity, Winchester Boulevard is considered a “Main Street” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph with sidewalks on both sides of the street and on-street bike lanes between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Direct access to and from the project site is provided via a right-in/right-out only driveway along Winchester Boulevard.

Moorpark Avenue is a four-lane east-west roadway that runs from Lawrence Expressway to Bascom Avenue. Moorpark Avenue is considered a “City Connector Street” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies. East of Bascom Avenue, Moorpark Avenue makes a transition into a three-lane one-way roadway to Leigh Avenue. Moorpark Avenue provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 6
Williams Road is a two-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It extends east from Moorpark Avenue to South Daniel Way, just east of Winchester Boulevard and is considered as “On-Street Primary Bicycle Facility” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies.

Williams Road provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.

Payne Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It extends east from Saratoga Avenue to Almarida Drive, just east of Winchester Boulevard and is considered a “Local Connector Street” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies. Payne Avenue provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.

Hamilton Avenue is a six-lane east-west roadway between Marathon Drive and Leigh Avenue.

West of Marathon Drive, Hamilton Avenue narrows to a four-lane roadway and extends west to Campbell Avenue. East of Leigh Avenue, Hamilton Avenue narrows to a four-lane roadway and extends west to Meridian Avenue. Hamilton Avenue provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.

San Tomas Expressway is a north-south expressway that begins at its interchange with US 101 and extends southward through Santa Clara and San Jose and into Campbell, where it transitions into Camden Avenue at SR 17. San Tomas Expressway provides access to and from the project site via Williams Road and Payne Avenue.

Eden Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It extends north from Hamilton Avenue to Moorpark Avenue. Eden Avenue provides access to the project site via Williams Road and Payne Avenue.

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Class II bikeways are striped bike lanes on roadways that are marked by signage and pavement markings. Within the vicinity of the project site, striped bike lanes are present on the following roadway segments.
 Winchester Boulevard, between Hamilton Avenue and Payne Avenue  Hamilton Avenue, west of SR 17
 Payne Avenue, west of Winchester Boulevard
 Williams Road, west of Baywood Avenue
 Moopark Avenue, west of Thornton Way
 Monroe Street, between Tisch Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard  Winchester Boulevard, between Tisch Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). Class III bikeways are bike routes and only have signs to help guide bicyclists on recommended routes to certain locations. In the vicinity of the project site, the following roadway segments are designated as bike routes.  Payne Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and Greenbriar Avenue  Eden Avenue, between Impala Drive and Hamilton Avenue  Milton Avenue, south of Hamilton Avenue
 Darryl Drive, between Hamilton Avenue and Payne Avenue  Monroe Street, between Moopark Avenue and Williams Road  Williams Road, between Baywood Avenue and Daniel Way
 Daniel Way, between Williams Road and Westfield Avenue  Thornton Way, between Moorpark Avenue and Downing Avenue  Central Avenue, bewteen Hamilton Avenue and Westfield Avenue  Downing Avenue, east of SR 17
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 7
Although none of the residential streets near the project site (i.e., Cadillac Drive and Eden Avenue) provide bike lanes or are designated as bike routes, due to their low traffic volumes, many of them are conducive to bicycle usage. The existing bicycle facilities are shown in Figure 3.

The locations of three pedestrian footbridge crossings over freeways in vicinity of the project site are listed below and shown in Figure 3.
 SR 17 pedestrian footbridge connecting Westfield Avenue and Downing Avenue  I-280 pedestrian footbridge connecting Moorpark Avenue and Cypress Avenue  I-280 pedestrian footbridge connecting Moorpark Avenue and Tisch Way Controlled crosswalks across Winchester Boulevard are provided near the project site at the signalized Williams Road and Payne Avenue intersections with Winchester Boulevard. Overall, the existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides good connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the area.

Existing Transit Service
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA and described below. The local bus routes near the project site are shown on Figure 4. The project site is served directly by one bus route (Frequent Route 60) with a stop along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard.

Frequent Route 25 runs from the De Anza College to Alum Rock Transit Center and operates from 5:00 AM to 12:30 AM on weekdays with 15- to 30-minute headways during commute periods. Route 25 operates along Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road in the project area. The closest bus stop is located approximately 2,000 feet north of the project site at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road.

Local Route 56 runs from Lockheed Martin to Tambien Station and operates from 5:00 AM to 10:30 PM on weekdays with 30-minute headways during commute periods. The closest bus stop is located approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue.

Frequent Route 60 runs from the BART Station in Milpitas to Winchester Station via SJC Airport and operates from 5:00 AM to 12:30 AM on weekdays with 15-minute headways during commute periods. Route 60 operates along Winchester Boulevard in the project area. The closest southbound and northbound bus stops to the project site are located approximately 500 feet south of the project site near the Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue intersection.

Express Route 101 runs from the Camden Avenue near Highway 85 to Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto and operates two northbound trips during the morning commute period and two southbound trips during the afternoon commute period with 50- to 60-minute headways. The closest bus stop is located approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue.

VTA Light Rail Transit (LRT) Service
LRT Green Line runs from the Winchester Transit Center in Campbell to Old Ironsides in Santa Clara and operates from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM with 15-minute headways during the peak commute periods. The closest LRT station is located approximately 1.4 miles from the project site at the interchange of SR 17 and Hamilton Avenue.

LRT Route 902 connects to other services such as Caltrain, Amtrak, and ACE in downtown San Jose at the Diridon Transit Center.
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 8
880
280
Payne Ave Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave W ni chester B vl d W ni chester B vl d 17 San Tomas Expwy San Tomas Expwy
Fireside Dr
Moorpark Ave Monroe St Monroe St Dan ei l Way Dan ei l Way Downing Ave Thornton Way Thornton Way Dar yl Dr Dar yl Dr Milton Ave Milton Ave Baywood Ave Baywood Ave Impala Dr
Westfield Ave
Tisch Way
Monroe St Monroe St
Cypress Ave Cypress Ave Greenbriar Ave Greenbriar Ave Central Ave Central Ave = Class II Bike Lane
= Class III Bike Route
= Bike/Ped Freeway
Crossing
= Project Site Location
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
Figure 3
Existing Bicycle Facilities
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 9
880
280
Payne Ave Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave W ni chester B vl d W ni chester B vl d 17 San Tomas Expwy San Tomas Expwy
Fireside Dr
Moorpark Ave Thornton Way Thornton Way Hamilton
LRT Station HamiltonLRT Station
= Local Route
= Frequent Route
= Express Route
X
XX
= Project Site Location
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
330 101
25 25
25 60
60 60
56 56
= Light Rail Transit (LRT)
= Bus Stop
X
Figure 4
Existing Transit Facilities
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1 0

3. TDM Plan
The TDM measures for the project were developed based on the parking reduction requirements outlined in Section 20.90.220 of the San Jose Code of Ordinances and were geared to meeting up to a 48.8 percent parking reduction.

Implementation of the proposed TDM measures would encourage hotel guests to utilize alternative transportation modes (transit, bicycle, and carpool) to further reduce the SOV trips and parking demand generated by the project.

City of San Jose Parking Code
According to Section 20.90.220.A.1 of the San Jose Parking Code, a reduction in the required offstreet vehicle parking spaces of up to 20 percent is automatically allowed if the provisions of Subsections a and b are met. A reduction of up to 50 percent may be authorized if the project conforms to the requirements specified in Subsections a and b, and implements at least three TDM measures specified in Subsections c and d. Section 20.90.220.A.1 is outlined below.

Section 20.90.220.A.1 – Reduction in Required Off-street Parking Spaces A. Alternative transportation.

1. A reduction in the required off-street vehicle parking spaces of up to fifty percent may be authorized with a development permit or a development exception if no development permit is required, for structures or uses that conform to all of the following and implement a total of at least three transportation demand management (TDM) measures as specified in the following provisions:
a. The structure or use is located within two thousand feet of a proposed or an existing rail station or bus rapid transit station, or an area designated as a Neighborhood Business District, or as an Urban Village, or as an area subject to an area development policy in the city's general plan or the use is listed in Section 20.90.220G.; and
b. The structure or use provides bicycle parking spaces in conformance with the requirements of Table 20-90.
c. For any reduction in the required off-street parking spaces that is more than twenty percent, the project shall be required to implement a transportation 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1 1
demand management (TDM) program that contains but is not limited to at least one of the following measures:
i. Implement a carpool/vanpool or car-share program, e.g., carpool ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool or car-share vehicles, etc. and assign car pool, van pool and carshare parking at the most desirable onsite locations at the ratio set forth in the development permit or development exception considering type of use; or
ii. Develop a transit use incentive program for employees and tenants, such as on-site distribution of passes or subsidized transit passes for local transit system (participation in the region-wide Clipper Card or VTA EcoPass system will satisfy this requirement).
d. In addition to the requirements above in Section 20.90.220.A.1.c. for any reduction in the required off-street parking spaces that is more than twenty percent, the project shall be required to implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program that contains but is not limited to at least two of the following measures:
i. Implement a carpool/vanpool or car-share program, e.g., carpool ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool or car-share vehicles, etc. and assign car pool, van pool and carshare parking at the most desirable on-site locations; or ii. Develop a transit use incentive program for employees, such as on-site distribution of passes or subsidized transit passes for local transit system (participation in the region-wide Clipper Card or VTA EcoPass system will satisfy this requirement); or
iii. Provide preferential parking with charging facility for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles; or
iv. Provide a guaranteed ride home program; or
v. Implement telecommuting and flexible work schedules; or vi. Implement parking cash-out program for employees (non-driving employees receive transportation allowance equivalent to the value of subsidized parking); or
vii. Implement public information elements such as designation of an on-site TDM manager and education of employees regarding alternative transportation options; or
viii. Make available transportation during the day for emergency use by employees who commute on alternate transportation. (This service may be provided by access to company vehicles for private errands during the workday and/or combined with contractual or pre-paid use of taxicabs, shuttles, or other privately provided transportation); or ix. Provide shuttle access to Caltrain stations; or
x. Provide or contract for on-site or nearby child-care services; or xi. Incorporate on-site support services (food service, ATM, drycleaner, gymnasium, etc. where permitted in zoning districts); or 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1 2
xii. Provide on-site showers and lockers; or
xiii. Provide a bicycle-share program or free use of bicycles on-site that is available to all tenants of the site; or
xiv. Unbundled parking; and
e. For any project that requires a TDM program:
i. The decision maker for the project application shall first find in addition to other required findings that the project applicant has demonstrated that it can maintain the TDM program for the life of the project, and it is reasonably certain that the parking shall continue to be provided and maintained at the same location for the services of the building or use for which such parking is required, during the life of the building or use; and ii. The decision maker for the project application also shall first find that the project applicant will provide replacement parking either on-site or off-site within reasonable walking distance for the parking required if the project fails to maintain a TDM program.

Compliance with the City Parking Code
The following sections describe how the project could comply with the City Parking Code.

Urban Village Area (Subsection A)
The project is located in a designated Urban Village area. Therefore, the project would conform to Subsection 20.90.220.A.1.a.

Bicycle Parking Requirement (Subsection B)
According to the City’s Bicycle Parking Standards (Chapter 20.90, Table 20-190), the project is required to provide bicycle parking for the project at a rate of one bicycle parking space plus one space per 10 guest rooms. This equates to a total requirement of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The project site plan indicates that two bicycle storage areas will be located within the basement level of the parking garage. The storage areas are shown to provide space for a total of 27 bicycles.

Therefore, the proposed bicycle parking on-site will exceed the City’s requirements and encourage the use of non-auto modes of travel and minimize the demand for on-site parking. Therefore, the project would comply with Subsection 20.90.220.A.1.b.

Vehicle Parking Requirement
The City's parking requirements for hotel uses (Section 20.90.060 Table 20-210) requires 1 vehicle parking space for each hotel room and 1 vehicle parking space for each hotel employee. The project proposes 119 hotel rooms and 10 employees per shift. Based on the City’s parking code requirements, the project would need to provide 129 off-street parking spaces before any reductions. However, the project is located in the Winchester Urban Village. The Urban Village Overlay automatically allows for a 20 percent reduction in parking. With the 20 percent reduction, the required parking would be reduced to 104 spaces. The project is proposing a total of 66 parking spaces, which would not meet the City’s reduced parking requirements.

The proposed number of parking spaces represent a 48.8% reduction from the standard required number of spaces. With the 20% Urban Village reduction, the project requires an additional 28.8% reduction in on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the project will need to submit and have approved a TDM plan. The TDM plan will need to include at least three TDM measures specified in Subsections c and d of Section 20.90.220.A.1.
1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1 3
Recommended TDM Measures
The recommended TDM measures are intended to encourage hotel guests and employees to utilize alternative transportation modes available in the area to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and parking demand generated by the project. The specific TDM measures that are recommended for the project are described below and are based on the measures specified in Subsections

20.90.220.A.1.c and d. Additionally, the project needs to ensure that the TDM plan will be maintained for the life of the project, which is in compliance with Subsection 20.90.220.A.1.e.

Bicycle Programs (Guests)
Bicycle Storage/Facility
The project will provide adequate bicycle parking per the City of San Jose Parking Code.

On-Site Bicycle Share Program
The proposed project would provide on-site bicycles for visitors to share. The bicycles would be stored in a secured common space that can be checked out by guests. Local destinations such as Westridge Valley Fair, Santana Row, and Winchester Mystery House are a short bicycle ride away from the proposed project. Inclusion of a bike share program would likely reduce the need for guests to use a car.

Guest Shuttle Services (Guests)
The proposed project would offer free shuttles to guests. The shuttle destinations would be determined based on guest preferences. It is initially thought that shuttles would serve the Mineta International Airport and downtown in San Jose. Since the proposed project is a hotel, a portion of the guests would likely be traveling through the airport. With the option of using the free shuttle, the need for a car and a parking space would be reduced. Mineta International Airport is approximately

4.4 miles driving distance from the proposed project. The shuttles may also serve other transit hubs including Diridon Station if deemed necessary by guest demand.

On-Site Car-Share Program (Guests)
The proposed project would provide on-site access to a car-sharing service such as Zipcars for hotel employees and guests. Vehicles will be located on-site allowing hotel employees and guests to come and go at their convenience. Vehicles can be reserved prior to visiting the hotel.

On-Site Paid Parking (Guests)
The project proposes to provide valet-only parking only on-site due to the presence of stacked parking lifts within the parking garage. Use of the valet service will incur an additional fee for guests, which will be added to room billings. Providing only paid parking on-site would encourage guests to utilize alternative modes of travel to the hotel, such as transit or guest shuttle service.

Free VTA Smart Passes (Employees)
The proposed project would offer free annual VTA Smart Passes for employees for the life of the project. Smart Passes would give employees unlimited rides on VTA Bus, light rail transit (LRT), and Express Bus service seven days a week. Smart Pass is deeply discounted below the standard fares, making it an attractive low-cost benefit to employees. 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1 4
Financial Incentives for Biking or Walking to Work (Employees) In order to encourage employees of the proposed project to use alternative modes to get to work, a parking cash-out program for employees would be established. Employees who walk or bike to work at least 4 days per week would be eligible to receive a financial incentive for doing so.

Employees who request a parking cash-out for bicycling or walking to work would not be eligible to receive subsidized annual VTA Smart Passes.

Participating employees would not be allowed to park in the project’s parking garage on a daily basis. However, since there may be times when employees who primarily commute using alternative modes of transportation need to drive to work, employees who receive a financial incentive for biking or walking to work (or who receive subsidized transit passes) should be allowed to park in the garage on such occasions. The maximum number of times those individuals may park in the garage could be set at twice a month, or some similar limit based on employee feedback from annual Employee Surveys.

The amount of the financial incentive for walking or biking to work would be $50 per month. The Federal Bike Commuter Benefit allows employees to receive up to $20 per month tax-free. The balance of $30 for bicyclists and the full $50 for those who regularly walk to work would be considered taxable income to employees. (Although transit and vanpool subsidies up to $255 per month are exempt from federal income taxes, the Federal Bike Commuter Benefit is limited to $20 per month.)
Parking cash-out is a state law in California, but the state law only applies to employers with 50 employees or more who lease their parking and where parking costs can be separated out as a line item on their lease. Because the proposed hotel would not have 50 employees, we note that the state law does not apply to this project. The parking cash-out program is voluntarily included as an element of this TDM Plan.

On-Site TDM Coordinator and Services (Employees)
The proposed project would provide an on-site TDM coordinator, who would be responsible for implementing and managing the TDM plan. The TDM coordinator would be a point of contact for guests and employees should TDM-related questions arise, and would be responsible for ensuring that guests are aware of all transportation options and how to fully utilize the TDM plan. The TDM coordinator would provide the following services and functions to ensure the TDM plan runs smoothly:
 Provide guests information at the time of check-in. The process would include information about public transit services, ridesharing services (e.g., Uber, Lyft, and Wingz), bicycle maps, the on-site bicycle-share program, the on-site car-sharing program and the guest shuttle.
 A summary of the transportation options offered to all guests and employees.  Manage the on-site bicycle-share program to ensure the bicycles remain in good condition.  Manage the on-site car-share program to ensure the vehicles are used in the manner intended by the car-sharing service.
 Provide information to employees about subsidized transit passes and the financial incentive programs for employees who bike or walk to work.
 Conduct parking surveys annually to track actual parking demand and determine whether additional TDM measures, or another parking solution, is needed. 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Development TDM Plan January 27, 2021 P a g e | 1 5
TDM Implementation and Monitoring
As previously stated, the primary purpose of the TDM plan is to reduce the proposed project’s parking demand by up to 48.8 percent. Per Section 20.90.220 of the San Jose Code of Ordinances, monitoring progress would be necessary to ensure that the TDM measures are effective and continue to be successfully implemented.

The TDM plan would need to be re-evaluated annually for the life of the project. If it is determined that the 48.8 percent parking reduction is not being achieved (i.e., the on-site parking garage reaches full capacity), additional TDM measures would need to be introduced to ensure that the parking demand is being addressed by the project without the burden being placed on outside entities.

Conclusions
The TDM measures to be implemented by the project include planning and design measures related to the attributes of the site location, the site design, and on-site amenities. Such measures encourage walking, biking, and use of transit. The TDM plan includes the following measures:
 Bicycle parking
 On-site bicycles for guest use
 Guest Shuttle services
 On-site access to car-share vehicles for hotel employees and guests  On-site paid parking
 Free annual VTA Smart Pass for employees
 Financial Incentives for employees who bike or walk to work  On-site TDM coordinator and services

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 11:12 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy; Gail Morman
Subject: 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd (C19-031 & H19-038) Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Dear Michelle,
Some of us met with Cassidy Kohl on December 3rd to discuss our concerns over the proposed 6 story hotel at 1212 & 1224 S.

Winchester Blvd. I wanted to be sure I am able to receive all reports and applicable information on the project. Is it necessary to subscribe to something in order to receive all the information on this?
Is this project currently at a standstill? Are there changes being proposed? We are concerned about how a 6 story hotel will affect the single family homes behind it, as well as how it will impact parking, traffic and the design of Winchester Blvd as a pedestrian and neighborhood friendly urban village.

I appreciate your help in getting all the information.

Regards,
Tom Morman
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Mike Drabkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 4:17 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: 1212 & 1224 S Winchester
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Hi Michelle,
We wanted to email our comments regarding the 1212 & 1224 S Winchester project ahead of our scheduled zoom meeting with the Vice Mayor.

We are among the concerned citizens, living in close proximity to this site, who are opposed to the project in its current form.

Being realistic about this, we completely understand that something will be erected on this combined parcel. However, after multiple meetings with our neighbors, the developer, and Mr. Jones, and after reviewing the available project documentation, it's difficult to shake the feeling that multiple exceptions to the rules & regulations are being approved or at least considered in order to sign off on this project -- all to have an end result that is undesirable to the folks, living nearby or passing through this area on a regular basis. We hope we can do better.

The concerns that are most frequently brought up in our discussions seem to be the following:

The insufficient parking provisions for the 119-room hotel • And that's considering the well under-estimated hotel staff per shift numbers that we've seen. • Our residential streets will become the overflow parking for the hotel. • The "DOT will look into any complaints after the project is done" approach that we've heard on another local project meeting leaves us unimpressed.

The traffic congestion
• We're being told that the street (Winchester Blvd.) will be widened to accommodate, but we just can't see how. The site is near the place where 3 lanes become 2 in the NB direction. • The timing of the traffic study is not being communicated. It needs to be done when the traffic is back to normal after all the businesses and schools are back in operation.

Fire safety
[External Email]
• We understand that the Fire Department has to sign off, but without side or back access to the property, we're having trouble seeing how a 6-story building can be protected in case of fire.

Aside from the above concerns, it is not clear to most of us neighbors how this business fits into the Winchester Urban Village development plan, since it does not benefit the local community and is likely to have a negative effect on our quality of life.

Best regards,
Mike & Galina Drabkin

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

From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:43 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: 1212 & 1224 S Winchester; Project File C19-031 & H19-038

Ms. Flores,
I would like to register my strong disagreement with the proposal for a hotel built near the intersection of Payne and WInchester. As a 40 year resident on Castlemont Avenue, I am beyond concerned with the increase in traffic that this project will unintentionally cause on our street and in our neighborhood. Here is why:
1) To enter the proposed project going south on Winchester, requires a u-turn at the light at Payne & Winchester to make a right turn onto the property. If one misses the entrance, or cannot turn for some reason, the driver will make the first right, which is Fireside, and then right onto the first 'through' street which is Castlemont. 2) At the end of Castlemont is a 4 way stop with Castlemont School on the SE corner. This 4 way stop is very busy when school is in session with children, parents, and cars. Turning right onto Payne to access Winchester is a very short block with over 5 driveways that exit onto Payne ( 2 apartment complexes, Taco Bell, EARS and retail strip containing a Baskin & Robbins, Little Caesar and 2 other businesses. Cars heading west on Payne to access Winchester often stack up though the 4 way stop while waiting for the light to change.
3) Payne Avenue is a short-cut used by commuters...via Almarida and Central Avenues off of Hamilton as well as a main access for the residents. Commuters also cut through our neighborhood streets to avoid the light at Payne & Hamilton, using Castlemont as the short-cut.
4) Castlemont has seen a sharp increase in the number of cars parked on our street as a result of over-flow from the apartments as well as the employees of EARS, Taco Bell and the retail strip.
5) Employees of the proposed hotel may well use our street for parking as my understanding of the number of parking spaces in this project proposal are not sufficient for all the guests and all employees.
6) Guests of the hotel will most probably use ride-share companies, such as Uber, Lyft and taxis to get around rather than the inefficient VTA bus schedule. I know I certainly would!! These ride share companies will most probably wait on Castlemont for customer contact.
[External Email]
7) There will be increased traffice with the opening of the Safeway at West Park Plaza as well as from the residents of the Lynhaven complex that is nearing completion at Williams and Winchester. Need we add more?
8) There have been many changes along Winchester...some better than others. But I feel strongly that this project will negatively impact the surrounding area and especially the residents who live on Redoaks. I ask you....would you want this project built in your back yard?? Increase in noise from parking cars, emptying of dumpsters, truck deliveries, employees' coming and goings, etc. as well as the loss of privacy due to the height of the building will negatively impact the Redoaks homeowners and the neighborhood as a whole.
9) Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Jackie Williams
1216 Castlemont Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128

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

From: Juma, Monica Paige <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:00 PM
To: Flores, Michelle; Blanco, Maira
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: 1212 -1224 Winchester Rd

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for the meeting tonight. Here are my comments/concerns again below.

Monica
[email protected]
(408) 802-8376
1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

We have been requesting the traffic report, which has been under review since January (8 months). We are very concerned about traffic congestion.

A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliveries, service needs, Uber/Lyft transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with an elementary school around the corner. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We feel this is inappropriate location for a 6-story hotel. It burdens, rather than serves the community.
2) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner’s estimated number of employees. We suspect that the Owner’s estimate of 10 employees is understated. An on-line search for estimates for a hotel with 119 rooms shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The [External Email]
owner’s estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men’s locker room, women’s locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: “Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use.” We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other concerns arise such as quality, safety and security.
3) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129.

This number is based on 119 rooms plus 10 employees. We feel this request for a reduction is grossly inappropriate. We question whether the estimate of 10 employees is realistic, based on on-line sources showing estimates for a similar sized hotel of 119 rooms is 95 employees (for a 3- star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). Vehicle Parking Requirement is 1 per guest room or suite, plus 1 per employee. Hence it seems an appropriate estimate of needed parking spaces is 119 + 95 = 214 parking spaces at the very minimum. We request a review of this estimation of employees and if it is underestimated, the number of required parking spaces needs to be appropriately increased. We feel the current number of required parking spaces, 129, is already not adequate, especially if the number of employees is more realistically 95-238. Hence, we feel the request for reduction in parking spaces is inappropriate. Parking reduction is subject to review of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) plan, which has yet to be completed (has been under review for 8 months). A hotel that cannot provide for its own parking is a burden on a neighborhood already impacted by apartments where people need to share space to afford rents, thereby worsening the availability of parking on neighborhood streets. We have an elementary school, Castlemont, around the corner. Many children walk to school and we are concerned about their safety with increased traffic.

4) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused more than $100 Million in damage. My daughter, 11 years old at the time, remembers walking with friends in the neighborhood and wondering if it was raining as ashes were coming down from the fire more than 1 mile away. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is 20’ from neighboring homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60’ from the rear fence. A fired in this hotel could be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated:
““The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus.” We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the project advances. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is reasonable for the City to allow this project to move forward. 5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Review Letter 10/9/19: “The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network.”
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the “Potential Mid-Block Crossing” (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy. We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward.
6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. Review Letter 10/9/19: “Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading
space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan.” (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The Off-Street Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner.
7) Drop Off” zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: “New developments should include dropoff/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient.” And Policy 6-24: “Ensure that dropoff/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes.” And Policy 6-45:
“Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character.” This seems the most egregious violation – a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones.
8) Privacy/Safety - Height reduced 5” to achieve a 20’ Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65’ hotel by 5 inches to go from a required 40ft setback to a 20’ setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65’.

At least 1 of the roof top structures is at the rear of the building, directly impacting the adjoining residential homes. Owner Plan A.08 shows a sidewalk along the rear fence plus a seating area at the back of the hotel, both within the 20’ setback area.

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5” drop in height to avoid the 40’ setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65’ mandate a 40’ setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors?
Received reply: “The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states ‘non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height’. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets.”
We request to know How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40’ setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors.
9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. We request Planning Dept post all documents.
10) Also, as was brought up tonight it seems like an issue of people versus profit, it would be great to know how much the property owner is making and how much the property values of the homes adjacent will decrease. Is there any compensation for this?

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

From: Marlene Schwilk <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:30 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: 1212 S. Winchester Hotel Proposal

Good Morning.

My husband and I strongly object to the proposed hotel at 1212 S. Winchester for the following reasons:
1) It is too tall. It will be towering over the single family residences on Red Oaks Drive and Castlemont Avenue, blocking the light and air space.
2) It will increase the parking problems, traffic, noise, and trash on our streets. We already have a parking issue because of the Castlemont School parking, and residents from neighboring apartments and streets using Castlemont Avenue as a parking lot. We never get our street cleaned by the city, and we are constantly picking up the litter left by these people. 3) It will substantially decrease our property values. Who will want to move here with all of these problems?
4) There is nothing positive about increasing the urban density with this hotel in the present era of deadly, uncontrollable virus infections, and increasing gang violence.

Sincerely,
Marlene and Fred Schwilk

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

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy; Gail Morman
Subject: additional questions - 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Michelle,
I don't know if you saw my message from May 20th, but I had some additional questions and I am adding one more.

1. Can you please clarify the size of the front right of way easement? Isn't that 26' instead of 25' , as per the owner plan: FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31'-0")

2. Are the side and rear setbacks deducted from the lot size in calculating the FAR?

3. From the "photos" in the owner plans, it appears that Winchester will continue to narrow at 1212 S Winchester. It also appears from the "photo" that the "Loading Space" and the "Drop-Off" areas are along the front curb, further
narrowing Winchester. Is this correct?

4. Do the sizable structures on the roof of the proposed hotel exceed 65' height limit? If so, is this an exception to the 65' maximum limit? Does this 65' trigger the 40' setback?
[External Email]

5. How does this project meet standards for Fire Department Vehicle Access?
We remember the Santana Row fire. Per Mercury News:
"The fire went to 11 alarms and caused more than $100 million in damage.

Embers from that fire ignited roofs half a mile away, destroying more than 30 apartments and townhouses in the Moorpark neighborhood, causing $2.5 million in damage."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/08/18/santana-row-firefacts/#:~:text=SAN%20JOSE%20%E2%80%94%20A%20decade%20ago,%24500%20million%20project's%2042%20acres.&text=The%20fire%20went%20to %2011,than%20%24100%20million%20in%20damage.

Thank you for your help with this, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman
(408) 666-0581
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>, Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>, Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Dear Michelle,
Thank you very much for clarifying the lot size and for sending the survey.

Can you please clarify the size of the front right of way easement? Isn't that 26' instead of 25' , as per the owner plan:

FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31'-0")
Are the side and rear setbacks deducted from the lot size in calculating the FAR?
Also, from the photos in the owner plans, it does not appear that Winchester is being widened, but will continue to narrow at
1212 S Winchester. It also appears from the digitalized photo that the "Loading Space" and "Drop-Off" areas are along the street in front of the hotel further narrowing traffic when vehicles are there. Is this correct?
Also regarding the height, the height of the building was lowered by 5 inches in order to obtain a 20' rear setback instead of a 40' setback. However, there are to be at least 3 sizeable structures or enclosures extending well above the roof. Does these exceed the 65' height?
Again, many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman
(408) 666-0581
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:22 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Please see below for the information provided by the applicant. The sheets they used are attached.

Survey of gross area is 30,074.7 SF. The 25 foot setback is 5,267.5 SF (210.7 X 25). A net site area of 24,807.2 SF

In the next resubmittal, I’ll ask the applicant to provide additional information about the property line dimensions and FAR.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Flores, Michelle
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:15 PM
To: 'Tom Morman' <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Tom,

The calculation for the lot size without the streets and sidewalk was provided by the applicant. I will share your calculations with the applicant and have him provide the exact dimensions of the lot he used in his calculation. I believe the applicant used exact measurements so that’s why the calculation he provided is different than the one in your email.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for getting back to me on this.

Can you please check my math:
[External Email]
Dimension of combined parcels: 200 x 146 = 29,200 per parcel map
Dimension of Public Right of Way: 200 x 26 = 5,200
Size of lot minus 26' right of way = 24,000
Is this not correct?
Thanks, Michelle....

Tom

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:54 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

I updated the project description online. The first submittal was for 118,528 square feet. The project description in the second submittal was revised to 107,079.9 square feet. The floor area used for the FAR calculation is 86,548.5 square feet. The below-ground garage is not counted towards the FAR calculation. The size of the lot without the streets and sidewalks is 24,547.77 square feet.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:08 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Dear Michelle,
[External Email]
Can you please help me with how the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.5 is being determined for the parcels at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd for the proposed hotel?

1. The plans describe total Floor Area as 107,079.9 sq ft. Is this the same as the exterior measurement for square
footage? I am asking because the permit search shows the proposed hotel to be approximately 118,528 sq ft.

2. Are the Right of Way easements being deducted from the lot size in determining the FAR?

3. Could you provide the numbers being used for the building size and the lot size in determining the FAR?
Many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

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

From: Markus Harry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:01 AM
To: Flores, Michelle; Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie
Subject: Comments/Concerns about 1212 & 1224 South Winchester Hotel project, Project file: C19-031 & H19-038
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Michelle, Cassidy and Chappie,
As a Resident in this community, my family and I have many concerns about this project and how it's going to affect our neighborhoods. I'm sure many have written as well. I will bulletize our concerns, which I'm sure are possibly congruent to many others expressing their concerns as well.

1. Appearance and Property Values: To start, the physical presence of such a large structure, directly placed in our neighborhood is of great concern. Not only is this development large and out of place, but due to its size and height, the visual appearance, even directly visible from our homes, and many others is almost a form of blight. It directly impacts the feeling of our community in terms of having a semi quiet neighborhood, where we raise our families and expect a certain amount of privacy. When we all purchased our homes this kind of encroachment didn't seem to exist. But now, with rezoning by the city, developments like this are allowed; without a doubt, to reshape and "redefine" our neighborhoods. From a Financial perspective, without a doubt, this GREATLY affects our property values. We feel this structure (A hotel) is out of place and some other alternative should be considered, especially something "lower" in height and less encroaching on citizens who live in areas like Redoaks, who literally will have this 6 story structure 20 feet from their fences. Which seems rather odd in it's placement. the entire lot sizes of the two combined, with the sidewalk space on Winchester just seems very odd and out of place.

We request a different "Use case" be considered for these two lots, something that's more "Inline" with the original "Urban Development" plan of look and feel; a concept we are were all involved in, but now seemingly it's changing for the worse.

2. Parking. This goes without saying, with the plans on this project to only include less than half the necessary parking, combined with a restaurant, bar, or small other retail spaces, the parking for this project is drastically low. Of course, with Fireside, Castlemont and Payne, being the perfect "Circle" for both traffic and parking, we see this as a direct invasion of our neighborhoods as the obvious outcome will be patrons of the hotel merely just parking on our streets, in front of our homes, with parking and foot traffic through our neighborhoods all [External Email]
hours of the night. the proximity of this project is too close to our neighborhoods and the choice seems obvious as to where people are going to park.

We ask, that if any type of project is going to be pursued here (Hotel, Mixed Use, etc), that our immediate neighborhoods be granted the RPP, as we've asked for this program for years, to no avail, with our neighborhoods ALREADY impacted with apartment parking nearby. Since the RPP was implemented in the "Eden Area" (Loma Verda, Impala, etc) we have had massive overflow into our neighborhoods. This has been going on for years. We are plagued with Litter, abandoned cars, blocking of driveways and foot traffic all hours of the nights. We've even had neighbors assaulted by those parking here illegally. We've asked for increased DOT presence to tow and/or red tag vehicles, with no results.

To put this "hotel" project in our community, in such close proximity to our homes, this will make the problem worse, with Redoaks, Fireside and Castlmont, possibly even Woodlawn Avenues, directly impacted.

We request RPP regardless of what the project outcome is of this hotel.

3. Vehicle Traffic: Obviously, when one looks at a map, of the site targeted, with our immediate neighborhoods, the increase in traffic (And parking) is going to be massive. Fireside will be the immediate inlet, from Winchester, for people driving to the hotel. If there's no parking inside the hotel (Which, from the plans, looks to be not nearly enough, also with the fact the "Lift" type parking they want to provide inside the hotel garage takes a lot of time and delay) the obvious choice will be to take Fireside, then take a right on Castlemont, up to Payne (Another right) and then get back onto Winchester North. Castlemont and Payne are directly adjacent to a grade school (Castlemont grade School), and during school hours Castlemont and Woodlawn are already bumper to bumper traffic (Which nobody in the community is upset about, that is the new normal for grade schools in this area - parents dropping off kids). But couple that with "hotel" traffic and we have a real mess. Payne onto Winchester is already stopped up all the way to Castlemont, as people wait for the light.

This hotel, or project, is going to cause a very large amount of traffic, all hours of the night as well, on Castlemont and Woodlawn. We already have a massive SPEEDING problem on Castlemont and Woodlawn. We've asked for a survey but to date, have never gotten a proper survey. I sit on my porch every day and watch people speed up and down Castlemont, sometimes in excess of 70MPH, as "Racers" at Payne and Castlemont, jump the stopsign and race down our streets. This is a Schoolzone! And this happens daily. The traffic "Study" done on Payne, to me, is not valid. To do a proper study you have to clock cars when the driver's are UNAWARE of being clocked. A large trailer, with a 3 foot sign, showing speed, is not a proper survey. This is a huge problem on our streets, and we've brought this up to district 1 leadership many times, with no solution set or even considered. This hotel will drastically increase traffic on our streets and cause even more risk to kids walking to school and parents dropping off their kids on our streets.

We ask, not only for RPP in our surrounding neighborhoods, but also for Speed Bumps on our surrounding streets, like Castlemont, Woodlawn and Fireside. Possibly even a roundabout at Fireside and Castlemont, to slow down traffic. We also request a real traffic study, with community involvement to ensure correct results.

4. Foot Traffic: Synonymous with Vehicle traffic, the mere presence of our neighborhoods, being in such close proximity to this project, will immediately put parking vehicles in front of our houses all hours of the day and late into the night, even into the AM hours. Since this is slated to be a "hotel" patrons would be checking in at any hour. This puts them parking on our streets and walking back and forth to the Hotel. Picture "Rental cars", with parking, unloading luggage, rolling luggage up and down our sidewalks. We already have parking issues today, as well as litter issues (which we, as residents, have to clean up on a daily basis. I have hundreds of photos documenting this). With this hotel "Project".

We ask for RPP to circumvent this. It's the most efficient and easiest solution to stop the infiltration of 24 x 7 parked cars, as well as the foot traffic, whereby keeping our neighborhoods "relatively" quiet in nature.

Please consider our concerns on this project; it's a fairly unanimous concept within our entire community here that this hotel "Project" is grossly out of place, and the impacts to our surrounding areas will be massive.

Thank you,
Markus and Ayi Harry, and daughter, Lili
1260 Castlemont Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128
Markus Harry
Cell: 408-375-0827
[email protected]

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

From: hal stone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 4:53 PM
To: Flores, Michelle; Blanco, Maira
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Comments for 1212 -- 124 S. Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016

Greetings all --
I live at 1233 Castlemont Ave. Theses are my concerns about the otel project:

There was no information to address any of the concerns/questions we had. Specifically, we needed information on Traffic, # of Employees, Parking, Fire Plan, Off-Street Loading Space, Drop Off Zones. We also requested information on Bicycle/Pedestrian Friendly Environment, as well as Privacy & Safety Issues. Without this information it isn't possible for us to intelligently address the project with respect to the neighborhood concerns.

Trying not to be too repetitive, the above information is what we (the neighbors of this proposed facility) need to intelligently determine how this will impact our neighborhood. Without it, we cannot comment positively or negatively on the proposal.

I request that you provide this information as soon as possible so we all can get a better feeling for how this new facility will impact our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Hal Stone

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

From: Dennis Talbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:20 AM
To: Flores, Michelle; Blanco, Maira
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Comments for 1212 – 1224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016

All,
Please find following some questions I have regarding 1212 – 1224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016 for your meeting tonight.

1. Question for Planning Department and Developer:

How does a hotel at this particular site contribute to
the mission and goals of the Winchester Urban
Village neighborhoods per the Winchester Urban
Village plan?

2. Question for Planning Department: How does the
placement of a six story structure at this particular
location justify a variance to the restrictions outlined in the Winchester Urban Village Plan?

3. Question for Planning Department and Council
Representative: If it is desirable to have an additional hotel in the Winchester Urban Village area why
couldn’t it be located on a more appropriate parcel
and located closer to its intended service locale (i.e. the corporate developments near Santana Row)?

4. Question for Planning Department and Council
Representative: In a city with a widely acknowledged
lack of affordable housing why is development priority
concerned with projects that are aimed at market rate
[External Email]
solutions and thus fail to address the affordable
housing issue in the Winchester Urban Village area?
Regards,
Dennis Talbert
San Jose, CA resident of North Hamman Park
Neighborhood

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

From: Seshadri Sathyanarayan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:59 AM
To: Flores, Michelle; Blanco, Maira
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Comments for 1212 – 1224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016; Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Hi,
We have previously expressed concerns that the review and approval process for the hotel project does not appear to have taken into account the guidelines for height and commercial use aspects.

We would like to now draw attention to the designation in the urban village plan document above, that clearly requires that any infill development should improve and/or enhance existing neighborhood conditions and generally conform to the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The Winchester Urban Village plan document states the following on page 23 of the document:

The Residential Neighborhood land use designation is applied to a limited number of single-family detached residential properties located on the east side of Winchester Boulevard behind properties that front Winchester Boulevard. The intent of this designation is to preserve the existing character of these neighborhoods and to strictly limit new development to infill projects which closely conform to the prevailing existing neighborhood character as defined by density, lot size and shape, massing and neighborhood form and pattern. New infill development should improve and/ or enhance existing neighborhood conditions by completing the existing neighborhood pattern and bringing infill properties into general conformance with the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Even if the hotel does get built, the quality of the hotel must "enhance or improve the quality of the surrounding neighborhood". We are concerned that there is no mechanism in place for us as citizens to hold the builder to a high level of standard with whatever is built at the site.

Clearly, a poor quality hotel would greatly affect the character of the neighborhood, potentially impacting property values. And we are very concerned that, that could result in residents being forced to leave this area - certainly not what is intended with the urban village and the envision 2040 general plans.

We fully support the urban village plans and look forward to high quality growth on winchester blvd (e.g. true urban village like character with mixed use properties, restaurants, cafes, bookshops etc.), that could only help the neighborhood retain and enhance the quality that has been maintained so well since the 1950s when it was first built.

Residents of Hamann Park
[External Email]

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

From: Marlene Schwilk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 12:14 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie
Subject: Comments for 1212-12224S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016

The following are our requests:
1) TRAFFIC: A traffic report with the TDM included
2) EMPLOYEES: An independent review of the owner’s estimated number of employees is needed. 3) PARKING SPACES: A review of the number of parking spaces, based on the independent review of the number of employees
4) FIRE PLAN: A Fire Department review as soon as possible, and before the project advances 5) PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT: Explain how this project is consistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20, in the Planning Department Review letter dated 10/9/19 to the owner
6) OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE: See Review Letter 10/9/19. The loading space needs to be labeled on the floor plan.
7) DROP-OFF ZONES: Review the appropriateness of the Drop- Off Zones 8) REAR SETBACK: Explanation of the height of the structures on the roof which exceed 65 feet. We request a review and consideration to require at least a 40 foot setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in the setback space, respecting the privacy and safety concerns of next door neighbors
9) POST ALL DOCUMENTS: The planning Department need to post all documents on the Permit Site.

Thank you.

Marlene and Fred Schwilk

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

From: Mary Kean <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 5:40 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: File No. SP20-016 Meeting details:

Importance: High

Michelle,
I would like to know the status of what happened at the meeting on August 10. I was out of town and not able to attend. I would also like to know the CEQA studies and traffic studies in particular that was done concerning the hotel in light of the other development in the area.

As a registered civil Engineer and a. Home owner in the area, I can tell you this projects is a terrible idea and I strongly disagree with this project and do not want it built in this area. It is the wrong fit for the wrong space. The biggest concern I have is traffic and change in zoning:
• demolition of two existing single-family residences for a commercial hotel is changing the zoning which I disagree with.
• THe 6 story hotel backs onto residential homes will deeply effect those homes • The 0.69 lot is very small and traffic into/out of the hotel will be a problem. • Across the street is Bethel hotel which gets traffic and you have a large apartment complex now across the street which once Covid is over will bring big traffic headaches to Winchester and nearby streets.
• Dunkin Donuts just opened up and it is creating traffic problems on Winchester nearby • Traffic on Eden will definitely be affected as spillover from Winchester.

Thank you for your time and attention to my public comment. I live n Bluebird Drive near the corner of Payne and Winchester and I drive Winchester Rd every day to/from work and I am deeply concerned about the effect on traffic from this hotel.

Mary Kean, PE
Registered Professional Engineer/Civil Engineer
Home Owner: 3209 Bluebird Drive, San Jose CA
510-918-9949
[email protected]

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

From: Amy Finch <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Flores, Michelle; Anurag Simgeker
Subject: Hotel on Winchester Questions and Concerns
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Hi Michelle - I'm writing regarding the hotel that is being proposed to go in on Winchester.

I am concerned about the security that will be in place in the hotel. I would like to know what security measures will be incorporated?
Will there be on-site security?
Will the hotel staff be trained in security measures and how to prevent and screen for a potential crime? Will the hotel accept cash or will it be only credit card? How many staff will there be in the hotel? Also, I'm wondering if you have any insight as to what is going on with the other residential homes on Winchester until Greentree Way. If it's not available now, when will it be available? Thanks, Amy

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

From: Helen Matsumoto <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 10:00 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie; Brian Matsumoto
Subject: Hotel proposal

Hello Michelle, Chappie, and Cassidy,
We are very concerned about the City's proposal to build a 6 story hotel on Winchester, which is right behind our home.

We have several concerns:
(1). What is the need for a hotel in a residential neighborhood? (one should be mindful how COVID-19 will impact the future way of doing business such as less conferences, etc) If there is a need for additional hotels in San Jose, it should not be in a suburban residential area. A hotel in a commercial area would be more viable.
(2). Another major concern is safety.

The site plan depicts a 20 feet rear setback. The exact wording on page A.02 from the document, (Winchester Hotel_H19-038, 2nd Submittal Plan Set_ Part 1pdf) states:

A 20 feet rear setback and 6 feet side setback is provided, and additional sidewalk easements will be provided to allow for 26 feet sidewalk are provided on Winchester avenue.

The question comes up of safety concerns, especially fire. There is no provision that a fire truck will be able to reach the rear of the building. This is particularly alarming, if there is a fire or some emergency at the rear of the hotel. The only access is from the street and because of the height of the building, it will be extremely difficult to fight a fire at a rear mid level location. The hoses will either have to go over the top of the six story and then down or through the hotel ground floor and then up.

This same fire safety comes up as there is only a six feet setback on the sides of the proposed hotel. There is no provision to have any large equipment with only six feet.

Another safety issue for this location is having a bar around the corner from an elementary school This is not conducive to the concept of having a safe neighborhood for the children and certainly not beneficial to our neighborhood.
(3). We are concerned about the mental health impact. Having a SIX-story building will block out the sun, making it a less healthy environment for the neighborhood. Many studies have shown people suffer SAD (seasonal affective disorder) due to less sun, especially in the winter. A SIX-story building will block off sun all year round.

Production of melatonin. When it’s dark, your brain produces the hormone melatonin to help you sleep and then sunlight during the day triggers the brain to stop melatonin [External Email]
production so you feel awake and alert. During the short days and long nights of winter, however, your body may produce too much melatonin, leaving you feeling drowsy and low on energy.

Production of serotonin. The reduced sunlight of winter can lower your body’s production of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps to regulate mood. A deficit may lead to depression and adversely affect your sleep, appetite, memory, and sexual desire.
(4). We are very concerned how all these developments and proposed projects on Winchester will impact the traffic on Winchester. Have you seen the morning commute (before COVID-19)? One cannot even cross Moorpark as the traffic (2 lanes) is backed up to get onto 280. Imagine all the commuters that will be added with the Reserve begins to fill their 600 apartments, etc.

Have you seen traffic on Winchester during Christmas season? It is a nightmare to avoid when possible, but now it will only be worse with the additional cars that will be coming from the Reserve. Adding a hotel and condos will cause an even bigger traffic jam on Winchester. That is not fair or considerate to our neighborhood. Additional traffic where drivers push the speed limit also adds to the safety issue of our neighborhood.
(5). Other concerns with this hotel proposal is parking and traffic flow.

On page A.02 there is a Parking Table for the proposed hotel (copied below) It states a ratio of 1 parking space per room = 119 spaces Employees and office has 1 per person = 10 spaces
Total Project Requirement = 130 spaces
Parking Provided = 67 spaces
Parking Reduction = 63 spaces
Requested TDM Reduction = 48.4 %

To request a reduction of almost 50% is very egregious. In a society and culture where freedom and independence to travel is necessary, to not have at least one parking space per room would definitely be a show stopper. If this was in a true urban center like Manhattan it may be reasonable but in our suburban setting this does not fit well.

The diagram on page A.07 also shows a type of “car elevator” set up for the 67 spaces for parking as cars are stacked. There is no indication of how this will actually work. The driveway down to the basement is only 27’-4” which will be very tight for two cars to pass. There is an immediate concern for timelines for guests to be able to retrieve their cars when needed.

Currently, Winchester Blvd narrows immediately after the adjacent Skilled Nursing facility. The question of hotel guests checking in and out has not been addressed properly. In most cases (probably over 95% or greater), there is ample wide temp space or parking near the entrance for guests. This is obviously needed for luggage transportation and for disabled guests. In the drawing of A.08 there is NO indication of such space, just a little box that says Drop-Off on the other side of the sidewalk.

As there is no rear entrance to the proposed hotel, it has to be assumed that any large deliveries will need to be offloaded on Winchester Blvd. As this is a hotel, there will need to be multiple deliveries each day, not only for room services but for the food/bar services that are proposed. As it has been indicated in a previous comment, this will definitely disrupt any traffic flow. There are currently only two lanes Northbound and to close one lane will create a lot of frustration to commuters/travelers not associated with the proposed hotel.

In summary there are 'many' concerns which we view as valid and necessary to be addressed before a project that is this massive can be allowed to proceed.

A proposed hotel that is six stories (largest neighborhood bldgs. are two stories), limited parking, traffic concerns, having an alcoholic license, fire and safety concerns, at this location does not fit in the spirit of neighborhood and urban village development.

Respectfully,
Brian Matsumoto, engineer
Helen Matsumoto, social worker

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

From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:59 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
This project should not be allowed in our single family home neighborhood. We have a terrible parking problem currently with the apartment complexes in the area. There is no space for additional cars from a 113 room hotel, for guests or workers. We can't allow this project to go forward. Who would want a hotel in their backyard built on two single family home lots? Nobody Name: Rita Jelincic
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number: 5109094635
Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]

1. Can we see an analysis of the impact of emergency vehicle access to the Subacute Rehabilitation Center that resides next the the proposed hotel? Will there be a way to quickly divert any traffic (uber drivers serving hotel guests) to allow emergency vehicles access to the Subacute Center?

2. How will this hotel specifically serve the individuals in this greater neighborhood/community? Would hotel patrons be more likely to want to stay in this particular spot vs a mile or two away in an area that is primarily zoned for commercial use?

3. Is the main reason that it is being placed at 1212 Winchester solely because it is more affordable to the developer than another site? if there are benefits to the people that live in the area, please state them.

Name: lisa szuter
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:25 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
This combined lot is too small to small to support a 6 story hotel. It will block out the light and airspace of the single family residences nearby.

Name: Marlene Schwilk
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
A condominium project would be a better fit for the community than a hotel.

Name: Marlene Schwilk
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:39 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
78 parking places are not adequate for this project. All of the overflow parking will be on our residential nearby streets.

Name: Marlene Schwilk
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 9:57 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[External Email]
As a resident of Castlemont Avenue, only a very short walking distance from where this hotel is proposed (one street over), I, as well as my family, and many other's in the community, have grave concerns about the viability of this project and how it will most certainly affect our community in a negative manner.

To start; a 120 Room hotel, on two such small lots, is completely out of place and clearly it violates the overall look and feel of the "Urban Development" plan that has been instituted by the City of San Jose for the surrounding areas. In short, this is a 6 story building, literally 20 feet from our neighbors on RedOaks avenue, which will not only be a form of visual "Blight" in this neighborhood but the logistics of this Hotel, and what's being put forth, has massive impacts on our community (Again, seemingly going against the overall look and feel of the "Urban Development" project plan of 2040). From anywhere in a 2 to 3 block radius, this Hotel will be encroaching and towering over our neighborhood. The impacts to parking, traffic, visual blight, noise and overall privacy is massive. Attending all of the "urban development" meetings, and participating in the workshops, I seem to remember it was an agreed upon concept that the "Anchor" points of Santana Row and Hamilton Winchester, we're to house the larger structures such as this, and in between there was to be more of a "Community" development plan with Bike lanes, small parks, small retail, and somewhat limited to 4 stories or lower, to maintain that small "Communnity" type appeal. this 6 story hotel seems to completely defy this violating the documents and "Plans" put forth by the city. Further, this developer, as we've been told, completely disregarded proper protocol, consulting with District 1 leadership, as well as having been able to bypass the Urban development "Committee" before such plans took effect. Now we, as residents, face this massive structure, literally being built on top of our homes. We find this unacceptable.

Parking: Obviously, with the owner of this project, asking for a reduction in parking by Half, will undoubtedly put cars for this hotel directly into our neighborhoods. The "Circle" of Payne, Winchester, Fireside and Castlemont is clearly evident how the overflow parking, and traffic, from this hotel is going to work. We are already impacted in our neighborhoods from the overflow parking of high density housing on winchester, Loma Verda, impala (Where Permit parking was instituted), now our neighborhood is overrun with parking and permit parking for our area, has been denied. Now, with this hotel, there is no other place for patrons to park other than in our close neighborhoods, we will have 24 x 7 foot traffic on our streets, with an increase in litter, noise all hours of the day and night, as well as no place for residents, or friends or family to park due to the hotel. One look at a map will immediately show what will happen when the hotel reaches 50 percent or more capacity, as the developer clearly, with the plans, has not accounted for not near enough parking. This is clearly obvious, as the patrons (or valet's) will immediately take the cars onto fireside, to redoaks, or up fireside to Castlemont and park wherever there is street parking. In addition to this, the Hotel will probably charge a fee for valet parking while we, the residents and many LONG standing residents of this neighborhood, literally wake up every morning to our neighborhoods filled with "guest" parking (Which is "Free"). this one hundred plus room hotel is vastly DEVOID of proper parking. WE, as residents, request, that if this plan is to go ahead, we immediately be granted permit parking in our surrounding areas. this, of course, would be a "Deal Breaker" for the developer ans one only has to look at the plan and the map to fully understand exactly what the obvious outcome is: Massive impacts on our neighborhood.

Traffic: Again, looking at a map, one can clearly see the "Course" of how traffic will be increased in our neighborhoods. Since Winchester is divided, and north and south traffic only, with limited ability to shift course in between lights, once someone is traveling "north" on winchester, to access the hotel, with no front parking, or internal parking in the hotel itself (As the parking spaces are seriously lacking for a structure this large), they will simply turn east on Fireside, head straight up to Castlemont, go south, then to payne and go West, BACK onto Winchester North to do another "Circle". Also, guests streetside parking will be traveling south on Castlemont to Payne, or up Woodlawn To Payne, to complete the circle to get to Winchester, where they can either go north or South. The traffic impacts are clearly obvious for our neighborhoods. We have requested, for years, the installation of Speed bumps on Castlemont, woodlawn and fireside, to no avail with the city. We also are a street that BORDERS a gradeschool (Castlemont gradeschool) so opening hours of school are heavy, heavy traffic days, frequently with people speeding up and down Castlemont and Woodlawn with children present. It has been warned, and advised to the city, in both written and verbal form, that with this many children present at certain hours of the day, with no speed bumps or some way to limit traffic speed, we will have an incident sooner or later, possibly a fatality. the increased traffic from this hotel would be no different, in fact ADDING to the dangers of pedestrians and children when they are present in the neighborhoods to and from school (Incidentally, woodlawn and Castlemont are also heavy traffic streets, as well as Greenbrier, as neighborhoods, with limited outlets to Winchester, frequently travel from northern areas through our streets to get to payne, or to Hamilton, to access freeways and other patroned businesses such as Kohls, bed bath beyond, etc.

The traffic increase in our neighborhoods is clearly evident when looking at a map and how this would impact us as residents. We already have a problem the city will not address, this will just ADD to the existing problem. We request, that IF this plan Hotel is greenlighted, we request Permit parking AND Speed control devices (speed bumps or roundabouts) on ALL surrounding streets: Fireside, Castlemont, Woodlawn, Redoaks, Greenbrier. just mere 2 blocks away, the City of campbell has all of these in order.

And to think we have NONE of these, being bisecting streets to a GradeSchool is unconscionable.

Other community neighborhood questions/concerns:

Drop Off" zones for Proposed Hotel.

There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient." And Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes." And Policy 6-45: "Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character." This seems the most egregious violation - a driveway for 66 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock.

Also it is hard to see how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles.

The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled.

Review Letter 10/9/19: "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The Off-Street Loading Space needs to be labeled.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
SJ Planning Dept Review Letter dated 10/9/19 to the Owner: "The proposed project (hotel) is preliminary inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network." Instead, the pedestrian friendly sidewalk would be traversed with guests pulling luggage checking in and checking out, cars crossing the sidewalk to enter and leave the garage, deliveries, garbage, service people crossing the sidewalk with whatever they are bringing or removing. Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage and in and out of the flex lane. And what will this do to the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy.

Fire Plan:

We see marked fire lanes in the new 6 story Lynhaven Apts, in the Villa Cortina condos, even in the older A Grace Subacute care facility. A 2015 OSHA publication stated: ""The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus." This 6 story hotel design leaves no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes. It is planned to be 20' from neighboring homes, next door to a sub-acute care facility, across the street from Bethel Church and around the corner from Castlemont Elementary School. The Lynhaven Apts have a 60' rear setback with marked fire lanes. The difference in being able to have reasonable setbacks and fire lanes is lot size:

7.68 acres for Lynhaven Apts compared to 0.69 acre for the proposed Winchester Hotel. The Fire Dept Review needs to be done as soon as possible.

As a tight knit community, we also request further information, which is seemingly not being provided:

1. Parking : TDM (Transportation Demand Management) The Owner is requesting a parking reduction of 48%.

Request:

Please provide what was called for in the SJ Planning Dept Review Letter to the dated 10/9/19: "A Transportation Demand Management program would need to be implemented on-site to allow the alternative parking arrangement. Please provide the TDM and a narrative indication which TDM measures would be used and how the site design and layout of the proposed building would incorporate those measures. Additionally, the TDM would need to be included in the scope of work for the transportation consultant."

2. Traffic Report - "Under Review" since January
Request: Please have the Traffic Report completed with the TDM.

3. Number of Hotel Employees Owner estimate of the number of staff required appears incomplete and underestimated as written: "For this medium size hotel, we project that the average employee shift will be 10 employees as follows: General Manager (1), Front Deck (1), coffee station (1), bar (1), valet (1), housekeeping (3), accounting (1) and maintenance person (1)." This is substantially lower than online estimates. See below.

Request: The Planning Dept require that the Owner provide a full report as outlined in their Review Letter to the Owner on 10/9/19:
"Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use."
We would like to see that employees, details and hours of operation include the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM, guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men's locker room, women's locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing.
(On-line sources substantially higher for a mid level hotel: range of 60 to 119 a) "The amount of the staff engaged in hotel activity largely depends on the status of the hotel.

According to the recommendations of the World Tourist Organization, the optimum number of staff per 10 rooms in three star hotel - 8 person, in four star hotel - 12 person, in 5 star hotel - 20 person." ( 8 x

11.9 = 95 employees)
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Fwww.city-ofhotels.com%2F165%2Fhotel-staffen.html%23:~:text%3DThe%2520amount%2520of%2520the%2520staff%2C5%2520star%2520hotel%25 20%25E2%2580%2593%252020%2520person&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov %7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata =nFCZzkXap5qtiUtMtHO6bpOyDpptJPdgEE%2F%2FhHuPfwA%3D&amp;reserved=0. (See Hotel Business, Hotel Staff
b) "Number of Employees. Class as measured by full service or limited service refers as much to the size of the staff as to the physical amenities.The in-between class of hotel uses an in-between number of employees. That ratio ranges from 0.5 (one-half) an employee per room to as much as a 1:1 ratio." Check-in Check-Out: Managing Hotel Operations, Second Edition, by Gary K. Vallen and Jerome J. Vallen.

Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright � 2013 by Pearson Education, Inc.

Chapter One: The Traditional Hotel Industry, p15. See Attachment c) "Security measures were used widely in hotels. The study found that a variety of devices and systems were utilized by the hotels to maintain guest safety.Most hotels had a small number of full-time security officers. More than half (51.4 percent) indicated that they had one or two security officers." Hospitality Review, Exploring the Relationship Between Hotel Characteristics and Crime, January 1998 (p. 87-88)
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.fiu.edu%2Fhospi talityreview%2Fvol16%2Fiss1%2F%3Futm_source%3Ddigitalcommons.fiu.edu%252Fhospitalityreview%2 52Fvol16%252Fiss1%252F9%26utm_medium%3DPDF%26utm_campaign%3DPDFCoverPages&amp;data =01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be 061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=r%2BV%2BYU%2FIF8S4DkmiWmpJRSibU%2FdmrI%2BIl b5bltwPM%2FE%3D&amp;reserved=0
d) Labor Intensive. "In many industries, for example, automotive, electronics, and technology, sophisticated equipment has replaced people in many work activities. By contrast, less of this has occurred in hotels because employees are needed to provide services and products. The traveling public increasingly wants and will pay for services and products delivered by employees who consistently attain required standards. A hotel's ability to attract and retain qualified staff members who consistently deliver excellent service is a key to the success or failure of a hotel." https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pearsonhighered.com%2Fa ssets%2Fsamplechapter%2F0%2F1%2F3%2F4%2F013433762X.pdf&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flo res%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26 139%7C1&amp;sdata=8u9SGBH19qumKz5Zb4XNioXQKlvVXgAN8rtK5WSSDZ8%3D&amp;reserved=0 Overview of the Hotel Industry, p 8-9

4. Fire Plan: "Aerial Access" The Owner's Winchester Hotel Plan shows the Fire Layout (p. C5.0) using aerial access from Winchester Blvd because there are no side and rear Fire Apparatus Access Roads, as required in other Winchester properties (Lynhaven Apartments currently under construction, Villa Cortina condos, A Grace Subacute care facility next door, etc) We ask why aren't the same safety measures expected here, especially in light of the Urban Village description of these parcels as "smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester and abutting single family residences" and their location abutting a single family neighborhood, next door to a subacute care facility, across the street from Bethel Church and around the corner from Castlemont School.
a) OSHA statement: "The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus. Building codes contain a concept known as frontage increase. This allows the maximum size of the building to be increased if a structure has more than a certain percentage of its perimeter on a public way or open space accessible to fire apparatus. Ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible." OSHA, Fire Service Features of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems, p.14 https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osha.gov%2FPublications% 2FOSHA3256.pdf&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b02 08d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=muKcybGiTyydeOzW%2Bv Du3u1fQDNlHuHMAPp%2BQkOkgc4%3D&amp;reserved=0
a) Santana Row fire - The 2002 Santana Row fire had embers igniting roofs half a mile away: "The Santana Row fire first was reported at 3:36 p.m., Aug. 19, 2002...The fire went to 11 alarms and caused more than $100 million in damage. Embers from that fire ignited roofs half a mile away, destroying more than 30 apartments and townhouses in the Moorpark neighborhood, causing $2.5 million in damage."
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2F2012 %2F08%2F18%2Fsantana-row-firefacts%2F&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83b bc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=C3S8raGHe3Cn3yyfd8vgD%2B8Jwj MsF6KZPpNaw8d0sbc%3D&amp;reserved=0
Request: Provide Fire Dept Review of Fire Plan. Provide risk assessment to neighborhood and surrounding facilities. Is there an evacuation plan need for subacute care facility patients?

5. Off-Street Loading Space
Review Letter 10/9/19: "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft)
On 6/2/20, Michelle Flores emailed that the Owner "would need to go through a separate process to request a loading zone in front of the project site."
Request: Label the location of the loading zone.

6. "Drop Off" zones and sidewalk parking driveway front of the hotel (Owner Plan, A.08) --Goal UD-14, "Parking & service areas should not be visible from the public realm." -- DS-20, "Surface parking are not permitted between sidewalk and building facade." --DS-22 "Loading & service areas should not be visible from Winchester Blvd and shall be located at the rear of a property, in structures, or in the interior of blocks." --Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient." --Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes." --Michelle Flores email, 6/2/20 - "They would need to go through a separate process to request a loading zone in front of the project site."
Request: Please demonstrate in writing how the project complies with the above policies. Describe where cars will wait to enter the garage. Describe how long and where cars will be allowed to park while dropping off or picking up guests.

7. "20 feet sidewalk"
Per Owner Project Description (A.02); Setback Exhibit indicates a 20 ft sidewalk. Owner Setback Exhibit appears to show the hotel encroaching onto the 20ft right of way. Owner Plan A.08 shows Drop Off zones for pick up and drop off on the street the front of the hotel for pick up and drop off, at the Garage Entry plus a driveway crossing to the garage across the sidewalk. 6/5/20 Michelle Flores emailed: "The details for the public right-of-way are approved after the Planning entitlement." We requested that the review be done prior to the entitlement. Michelle Flores answered: "The improvements for the public right-of-way are reviewed under each Planning application to determine what is appropriate for the project."
Request: Please complete the review regarding the improvements for the public right-of-way before the Planning entitlement.

8. Height and Rear Setback of 20'
Owner decreased the height of the proposed 6 story, 65' hotel by 5 inches and was allowed to go from a 40' setback to a 20' setback; roof top structures exceed 65'. At least 1 of the roof top structures is at the rear of the building, directly impacting the adjoining residential homes. Owner Plan A.08 shows a sidewalk along the rear fence plus a seating area at the back of the hotel, both within the 20' setback area. We have asked for explanations on the following: how does a 5" drop in height change a 40' setback to a 20' setback; do roof top structures exceeding 65' violate the height limit; are there regulations regarding hours for smoking, drinking, loud talking at the sitting area adjacent to the neighboring residential properties; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; On 7/8/20, Michelle Flores emailed: "The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states 'non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height'. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets." Winchester Urban Village GOAL UD-10: "Protect privacy and light and air access of existing residential neighborhoods in and near the Village."
Request: How tall are the structures on top of the roof? Do the above design features violate UD-10?

9. Bicycle Lane safety
Latest Setback Exhibit from the Owner shows 20' sidewalk, 5.5' bike lane, 4.5' rain garden; 11' Flexible Lane; 10' Travel Lane; 11' Travel Lane. This was in line with Policy 6-95: "Rain gutters should be installed adjacent to protected bike lanes to take advantage of grades/drainage patterns within right-ofway and act as a buffer zone".

Recently a new bike lane has been added on Winchester next to the two existing travel lanes. If this is permanent, now the bicycle lane will be located between the flex lane and the travel lanes. How will this affect bicycle safety? How many cars will be allowed to wait on the sidewalk at the Garage Entry? Request: Please clarify the location of the bicycle lane. Please show how this "Ensures that dropoff/pick up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes."- Policy 6-24. If the bicycle lane has been moved from adjacent to the sidewalk to the space between lanes, clarify how this is a protected bike lane per Policy 6-95.

10. Open Space
In the 7/22/19 letter to the Owner, Michelle Flores wrote: "For new development, open space must be provided." Policy 4-9 . We requested the location of the open space for public use? Michelle Flores responded: "I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets." Request: Where is the open space for public use?

11. Miscellaneous Questions
a) Requested: Where is the location of HVAC; what is the noise level? Where will the air/fumes be vented from the Basement Garage? Received: "The Building department and Fire department are also reviewing this project. They will look at other requirements such as the HVAC and ventilation of the underground garage." Request: Can the Owner give us the specifics regarding the location of the HVAC system and how the underground garage will be ventilated. Where will the fumes be released? b) Requested: If a hotel is built at this location, what becomes of the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" suggested at 1212 S Winchester, per Urban Village, Figure 4-1? Received: "Figure 4-1 shows a potential crossing, not a requirement. The improvements for the public right-of-way are reviewed under each Planning application to determine what is appropriate for the project"
Request: Who reviews the public right-of -way improvements? When will a decision be made on the Mid-Block Crossing?
c) Requested: What are the smoking restrictions for the 20' setback close to residential homes? Received: "Regulations for smoking are under Title 9 of the Municipal Code for Health and Safety, which is outside of Planning's jurisdiction."
d) Requested: Why is the Lot Line Adjustment Permit ( AT19-043) showing 0.86 gross acre site when all other documents show it as 0.69 acre site.

Received: "The size in the lot line adjustment is different than on the development permit. The development permit refers to the project site size. The Lot Line Adjustment looks at the legal description of the parcels for the boundaries. The lot lines of the property extend into Winchester Boulevard and include the easement for the public right-of-way. The lot size of the Lot Line Adjustment does not mean that the project can build in that entire area. The development permit has a smaller lot size since it is only for the project area."
NOTE: The legal description which is contained in the Survey (S.01) of the Builder's Plan does indicate that the property lines were 35' longer than what they are now, which would have made them 0.86 gross acre site. However, the legal description was written in 1945 & 1946 and describes the property lines extending to the center line of Santa Clara and Los Gatos Road, which clearly is now Winchester Blvd. The Survey itself states the AREA of the parcels as 30,074.52 sq.ft. or 0.69 Acres.

We feel it is important to represent these parcels accurately as the "smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester Boulevard and abutting single-family residences" described in the Winchester Blvd Urban Village.

Link - Winchester Blvd Urban Village:
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2 Fshowdocument%3Fid%3D32893&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f9 1189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=ZJ1dTn6riU Q%2FiyYURlgsw3VStHJpCFjff0pKL218h5k%3D&amp;reserved=0
Link - What is a Special Use Permit:
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2 Fshowdocument%3Fid%3D15471&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f9 1189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=hELNxbr18 5ptcE0mZ%2F86e48Qs2nAsPabEhaaP03oQBE%3D&amp;reserved=0
Link - San Jose - Fire Apparatus Access Roads
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2 Fshowdocument%3Fid%3D9157&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91 189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=xMELz9yhO 7wVpj6j6bHawKifxySAoeYAksWUPYr%2Bpmw%3D&amp;reserved=0
Attachment: Review Letter mentioned in the Permit Search for SP20-016.

Attachment: Check-in Check-Out: Managing Hotel Operations, Second Edition, by Gary K. Vallen and Jerome J. Vallen. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright � 2013 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter One: The Traditional Hotel Industry (See p15)
Name: Markus Harry
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number: 408-375-0827
Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 12:07 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[External Email]
I would like to express my concern with rezoning this lot to commercial, especially for a 120 room hotel.

Given that there is a pre school and elementary school just around the corner and is bordering residential homes it does not have the right chemistry for the neighborhood. It seems both Uncomfortable and even unsafe to have homes, some of which young kids living in them, share a fence with the back of hotel. The back of the hotel is being designed as a picnic area and thus the hotel is encouraging any of the potentially hundreds of guests to congregate in that area. The residents of these houses will have to host a never ending stream of strangers mere feet from there living areas. And whether legal or not it seems likely that the back of the hotel will be a common spot for customers to smoke cigarettes at all hours of the day. This would not only bring second hand smoke to the backyards of the neighbors but can easily bring smoke up through the Neighboring second story windows, which are often bedrooms. Imagine a young child sleeping with there window open only To be slowly poisoned Day after day, year after year, as hotel guests sneak out back to enjoy a cigarette, unknowingly exhaling toxic fumes into unsuspecting children's windows. I'm not trying to be over dramatic here but no one deserves to have to risk there heath and well being simply by living in there home, especially a home that was specially chosen because it was in an residential area.

Name: Aurie
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number: 4082060759
Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 13_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]

1. Question for Planning Department and Developer: How does a hotel at this particular site contribute to the mission and goals of the Winchester Urban Village neighborhoods per the Winchester Urban Village plan?

2. Question for Planning Department: How does the placement of a six story structure at this particular location justify a variance to the restrictions outlined in the Winchester Urban Village Plan?

3. Question for Planning Department and Council Representative: If it is desirable to have an additional hotel in the Winchester Urban Village area why couldn't it be located on a more appropriate parcel and located closer to its intended service locale (i.e. the corporate developments near Santana Row)?

4. Question for Planning Department and Council Representative: In a city with a widely acknowledged lack of affordable housing why is development priority concerned with projects that are aimed at market rate solutions and thus fail to address the affordable housing issue in the Winchester Urban Village area?
Name: DENNIS TALBERT
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.2 Safari/605.1.15
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:16 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

We have been requesting the traffic report, which has been under review since January (8 months). We are very concerned about traffic congestion. A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliveries, service needs, Uber/Lyft transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with an elementary school around the corner. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We feel this is inappropriate location for a 6- story hotel. It burdens, rather than serves the community. 2) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner's estimated number of employees. We suspect that the Owner's estimate of 10 employees is understated. An on-line search for estimates for a hotel with 119 rooms shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The owner's estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men's locker room, women's locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use." We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other concerns arise such as quality, safety and security.
3) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129.

This number is based on 119 rooms plus 10 employees. We feel this request for a reduction is grossly inappropriate. We question whether the estimate of 10 employees is realistic, based on on-line sources showing estimates for a similar sized hotel of 119 rooms is 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). Vehicle Parking Requirement is 1 per guest room or suite, plus 1 per employee. Hence it seems an appropriate estimate of needed parking spaces is 119 + 95 = 214 parking spaces at the very minimum. We request a review of this estimation of employees and if it is underestimated, the number of required parking spaces needs to be appropriately increased. We feel the current number of required parking spaces, 129, is already not adequate, especially if the number of employees is more realistically 95-238. Hence, we feel the request for reduction in parking spaces is inappropriate. Parking reduction is subject to review of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) plan, which has yet to be completed (has been under review for 8 months). A hotel that cannot provide for its own parking is a burden on a neighborhood already impacted by apartments where people need to share space to afford rents, thereby worsening the availability of parking on neighborhood streets. We have an elementary school, Castlemont, around the corner. Many children walk to school and we are concerned about their safety with increased traffic. 4) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused more than $100 Million in damage. My daughter, 11 years old at the time, remembers walking with friends in the neighborhood and wondering if it was raining as ashes were coming down from the fire more than 1 mile away. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is 20' from neighboring homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60' from the rear fence. A fired in this hotel could be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated: ""The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus." We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the project advances. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is reasonable for the City to allow this project to move forward. 5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Add who this letter is from/to (Review Letter from City to Owner? - its not clear) Review Letter 10/9/19: "The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network."
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy.

We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward. 6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. (From City to Owner?) Review Letter 10/9/19: "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The OffStreet Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner. 7) Drop Off" zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient." And Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes." And Policy 6-45: "Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character." This seems the most egregious violation - a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones. 8) Privacy/Safety - Height reduced 5" to achieve a 20' Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65' hotel by 5 inches to go from a required 40ft setback to a 20' setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65'.

At least 1 of the roof top structures is at the rear of the building, directly impacting the adjoining residential homes. Owner Plan A.08 shows a sidewalk along the rear fence plus a seating area at the back of the hotel, both within the 20' setback area.

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5" drop in height to avoid the 40' setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65' mandate a 40' setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors? Received reply: "The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states 'non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height'. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets." We request to know How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40' setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors. 9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. We request Planning Dept post all documents.

What is the developer trying to hide by not making these requested documents available for view by the neighborhood? Please help us make an informed decision.

Name: Miyuki One Bear
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number: 408-802-7695
Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36 Edg/84.0.522.52 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:23 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
A 65 foot tall building in this small space does not fit the privacy and safety concerns of the residential neighborhood behind it.

Name: M. Schwilk
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:46 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
These are my concerns.
1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

We have been requesting the traffic report, which has been under review since January (8 months).

We are very concerned about traffic congestion. A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliveries, service needs, Uber/Lyft drive sharing transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with multiple elementary schools and a middle school within a 1 mile radius. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We feel this is an inappropriate location for a 6-story hotel. The hotel is completely out of place and would add tremendous traffic during the morning commute to school with buses, parents, and commuters going to work alongside the many workers and services the hotel would require. It burdens, rather than serves the community.
2) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129. This number is based on 119 rooms plus 10 employees. We feel this request for a reduction is grossly inappropriate. We question whether the estimate of 10 employees is realistic, based on on-line sources showing estimates for a similar sized hotel of 119 rooms is 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). Vehicle Parking Requirement is 1 per guest room or suite, plus 1 per employee. Hence it seems an appropriate estimate of needed parking spaces is 119 + 95 = 214 parking spaces at the very minimum. We request a review of this estimation of employees and if it is underestimated, the number of required parking spaces needs to be appropriately increased. We feel the current number of required parking spaces, 129, is already not adequate, especially if the number of employees is more realistically 95-238. Hence, we feel the request for reduction in parking spaces is inappropriate. Parking reduction is subject to review of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) plan, which has yet to be completed (has been under review for 8 months). A hotel that cannot provide for its own parking is a burden on a neighborhood already impacted by apartments where people need to share space to afford rents, thereby worsening the availability of parking on neighborhood streets.

We have an elementary school, Castlemont, around the corner and multiple other schools within a mile radius, many of whom can be seen on a week day walking home after school, walking to/from the bus stop, and parents walking with their children. Many children walk to school and we are concerned about their safety with increased traffic. As a parent who raised my children in this neighborhood, I believe it would lessen the community that we have worked to cultivate. This is an oversized commercial venture for our residential community. My daughter worked for the Campbell Union School District at Castlemont and other schools, and personally knows and works with many of the students who walk in this area to school every day. It is frightening to think of such an establishment marring what is a family centered area with so many children near by.
3) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused $130 Million in damage. This fire devastated the area and it is clear we must cannot have building complexes like that so close to a neighborhood with many families, schools, and a convalescent hospital. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is directly adjacent to a family home and in front of several more family homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60' from the rear fence. A fire in this hotel would be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated: ""The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus." We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the approval of the project is considered. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is safe or responsible for the City to allow this project to move forward. 4) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner's estimated number of employees. We strongly suspect that the Owner's estimate of 10 employees is understated. An online search for estimates for a hotel with 119 rooms shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The owner's estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men's locker room, women's locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, and plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use." We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other issues arise like quality, safety and security.
5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Add who this letter is from/to (Review Letter from City to Owner? - its not clear) Review Letter 10/9/19: "The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network."
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy.

We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward. 6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. (From City to Owner?) Review Letter 10/9/19: "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The OffStreet Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner. 7) Drop Off" zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient." And Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes." And Policy 6-45: "Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character." This seems the most egregious violation - a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones. 8) Privacy/Safety
- Height reduced 5" to achieve a 20' Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65' hotel by 5 inches to go from a required 40ft setback to a 20' setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65'.

At least 1 of the roof top structures is at the rear of the building, directly impacting the adjoining residential homes. Owner Plan A.08 shows a sidewalk along the rear fence plus a seating area at the back of the hotel, both within the 20' setback area.

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5" drop in height to avoid the 40' setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65' mandate a 40' setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors? Received reply: "The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states 'non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height'. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets." I request to know. How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40' setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors. 9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. The community requests Planning Dept post all documents.

Name: Shehana Marikar
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number:

Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department
[External Email]
This project should not be allowed in our single family home neighborhood. We have a terrible parking problem currently with the apartment complexes in the area. There is no space for additional cars from a 120 room hotel, for guests or workers. We can't allow this project to go forward.

Name: Rita Jelincic
Email: [email protected]
Telephone Number: 5109094635
Web Server: sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Ron Canario <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: pre-meeting comments SP20-016

SP20-016
I oppose this structure because:

The proposed hotel would violate the privacy of all neighboring homes, which is primarily residential.

The added traffic will be unbearable on an already congested Winchester Blvd, PARTICULARLY after the 630 unit structure on Winchester & Williams has been completed and filled.

A 6 story structure will be aesthetically out-of-place in a surrounding area of 1 & 2 story buildings.

Respectfully,
Ron Canario
ron.canario@aol;.com
991 So. Clover Ave, San Jose, 95128

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

From: MORMAN GAIL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:36 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy; Morman Tom
Subject: Questions regarding 1212 S Winchester
Attachments: 2020.06.29_Neighborhood Issues & Requests made to Vice Mayor Jones.pages
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
[External Email]
Dear Michelle,
Can you please help us with the questions we have regarding the hotel project at 1212 S Winchester? See attached.

Many thanks,
Gail Morman
(408) 802-7132
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Randy Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Tom Morman; Flores, Michelle
Cc: Gail Morman; Jessica Kreischer
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns

Hi Tom,
Did you mean to send this email to Michele Clemente?
Randy Johnson | Sr. Energy Consultant | SunPower Direct 51 Rio Robles Avenue, San Jose, CA 95134 | mobile 415.936.9435 | [email protected]
From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:52 AM
To: Michelle Flores <[email protected]>
Cc: Gail Morman <[email protected]>; Jessica Kreischer <[email protected]>; Randy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns
Dear Michelle,
Thank you for sending the revised packet. It would help if the engineering dept can clarify:

1. Have they reviewed the current design of our home after the 2004 remodel/expansion involving the removal of portions of the rear (east) exterior and side (north) exterior walls with a lam beam installed where the portion of the rear wall was removed?

2. Is there any issue with the structure supporting the weight of the solar panels equipment?
[External Email]
I appreciate your help with this.

Regards,
Tom Morman
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:31 PM Randy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Michele!
Tom – let us know if you have any additional questions.

Best,

Randy Johnson | Sr. Energy Consultant | SunPower Direct 51 Rio Robles Avenue, San Jose, CA 95134 | mobile 415.936.9435 | [email protected]

From: Michele Clemente <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:23 PM
To: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Cc: Gail Morman <[email protected]>; Jessica Kreischer <[email protected]>; Randy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns

Hi Tom, please see attached, after further review our structural team have updated sheet PVS-1. Let me know if further concerns.

Thank you,

Michele Clemente
SPRI Project Manager | 916-692-7690

From: Tom Morman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 11:19 AM
To: Michele Clemente <[email protected]> Cc: Gail Morman <[email protected]>; Jessica Kreischer <[email protected]>; Randy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns

Hi Michele

My concern is that there is no way to know the there was a wall removed and replaced with a lam beam unless it was pointed out.

I asked the young man doing the site survey about this - he told me it was his first week on the job.

Plus the diagram you sent me shows the roof being supported by a load bearing wall.

So I want to make sure the engineering team is made aware of how the modified was done so that we are sure the structure is capable of handling the extra weight.

Many thanks
Tom

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:29 AM Michele Clemente <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom, since this renovation was already done, our site surveyor had all data and photo’s provided to our design and structural engineering teams. If there was an issue to support our solar load it would’ve been called-out at that time. I will send your information to our structural engineer for one more look.

Thank you,

Michele Clemente
SPRI Project Manager | 916-692-7690

From: Tom Morman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Michele Clemente <[email protected]> Cc: Gail Morman <[email protected]>; Jessica Kreischer <[email protected]>; Randy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns

Hi Michelle,

Randy is correct. This work was done in 2004 to expand the kitchen/family room at the back of our house, removing portions of the rear (east) and side (north) walls. The lam beam was used where the portion of the rear wall was removed. That is what I would like reviewed by the engineering team.

Many thanks,
Tom Morman

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:56 AM Randy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Michele,
Thanks for taking a look at this. The renovation was completed several years ago. No changes since site survey, Tom just wanted to make sure the engineering team was aware.

Best,

Randy Johnson | Sr. Energy Consultant | SunPower Direct 51 Rio Robles Avenue, San Jose, CA 95134 | mobile 415.936.9435 | [email protected]

From: Michele Clemente <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 8:41 AM
To: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Cc: Randy Johnson <[email protected]>; Jessica Kreischer <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns

Was this done after our site survey?

Michele Clemente
SPRI Project Manager | 916-692-7690

From: Tom Morman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Michele Clemente <[email protected]> Cc: Randy Johnson <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns
Dear Michele,
Thanks you for following up with me. I am attaching a sketch of where the second story roof is in relation to the exterior walls that were removed when we pushed out the back of
our house. A lam beam was installed in place of the east wall (rear wall). I marked the areas where the 2 exterior walls were removed.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Tom Morman
(408) 666-0581
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:06 AM Michele Clemente <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom, per my voicemail, just following up on your structural concerns regarding the load bearing walls and heights? Please feel free to give me a call or reply to this email and I can work with my structural engineer on concerns. I have attached your design package for reference.

Thank you,

Michele Clemente | SPRI Project Manager
2831 Merced Street #B, San Leandro CA 94577 | 916-692-7690 [email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

From: Kohl, Cassidy
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:50 PM
To: Tom Morman
Cc: Flores, Michelle
Subject: RE: 1212 S winchester
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Tom,
Yes, confirming that it appears there would be a 20 foot setback on all sides. I am looping in Michelle who may be able to better assist with more technical Planning questions. --
Cassidy Kohl
Council Policy and Legislative Director
Office of Vice Mayor Chappie Jones
San Jose City Councilmember, District 1
San Jose City Hall | 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 408-535-4914
www.sjdistrict1.com

From: Tom Morman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:46 PM
To: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1212 S winchester

Hi Cassidy,
Sorry to hear you had a cold. Not fun at this time of year. Hope you are feeling better.

Many thanks for this information.
--Can you clarify whether keeping the setbacks for the
businesses between Payne and 1212 & 1224 S Winchester will be considered in order to provide for adequate parking, bike [External Email]
lanes, additional lane for traffic or potential for light rail? Currently Winchester narrows after at 1212 S Winchester due to the residential properties, resulting in a loss of a traffic lane. Once you pass the 2 blocks of residential single family homes, the street widens again. Is there a plan for how wide Winchester will be to accommodate traffic, public
transportation, bike lanes, etc?
Based on the information you sent, can you clarify if this is saying that the setbacks on all sides are 20ft setbacks? --"Buildings that are less than 65 feet high can use a 20 foot rear/side setback when located adjacent to Residential
Neighborhood..." "All new development shall provide a 20 foot sidewalk fronting Winchester..."
Thank you for your help on this, Cassidy...

Tom
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:39 AM Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

I got your message-I apologize I was out at the end of last week with a cold. Still no movement on the project.

Here are the setback requirements:

Please see below for the stepback requirements.

--
Cassidy Kohl
Council Policy and Legislative Director
Office of Vice Mayor Chappie Jones
San Jose City Councilmember, District 1
San Jose City Hall | 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 408-535-4914
www.sjdistrict1.com

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

From: Jones, Chappie
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:12 AM
To: Barbara & Rudy Slankauskas
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Flores, Michelle; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Re: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) Thank you Rudy for providing your concerns. I copied Cassidy, from my team, on this email. She can make sure your concerns are communicated to the city’s planning department as well.

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chappie
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Vice Mayor, City of San Jose - Council District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www.sjdistrict1.com
On Jun 15, 2021, at 10:51 AM, Barbara & Rudy Slankauskas <[email protected]> wrote:

To all Involved in approving this project,
This project is poorly conceived. Clearly the parking and traffic increases have been downplayed and miscalculated by the developers. It is hard to understand why the developers are set on this obviously inadequate location. This is not a NIMBY complaint as we welcome well planned development in our area. There are many other suitable locations on Winchester Blvd.

I am very concerned with the impact the increased traffic will pose to the safety of children going to and from nearby Castlemont elementary school and on their way through the neighborhood to Monroe Middle School. The obvious lack of adequate parking will lead to cars parking on local streets and will lead to increased traffic on neighboring streets increasing the danger to students passing to and from school as well as all residents in the area. Please reject this development in its current location.
[External Email]
Sincerely, Rudy Slankauskas
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: MORMAN GAIL <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:15 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy; Morman Tom
Subject: Re: A question regarding the size of parcels for 1212-1224 S Winchester

Dear Michelle,
Thank you for clarifying that the legal description shows the lot lines extending into Winchester Blvd.

It appears the dimensions would have to be 206 x 181 instead of the 206 x 146 on the Assessor Parcel Map, extending 35' into
Winchester. Can you verify that this is correct?
We want to be sure that the Planning Commission is aware that calling these combined parcels a 0.86 gross acre site is only true if you include going to near or to the center of Winchester Blvd. We want to be sure the Planning Commission is aware that the Assessor’s Parcel Map shows 0.69 gross acres site and the Winchester Urban Village Plan describes these as "smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester Boulevard and abutting single-family residences”.

Michelle, were you able to open the attachment in my last email with the list of requested information?
Many thanks,
Gail and Tom Morman
On Jul 6, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Gail,
The size in the lot line adjustment is different than on the development permit. The development permit [External Email]
refers to the project site size. The Lot Line Adjustment looks at the legal description of the parcels for the boundaries. The lot lines of the property extend into Winchester Boulevard and include the easement for the public right-of-way. The lot size of the Lot Line Adjustment does not mean that the project can build in that entire area. The development permit has a smaller lot size since it is only for the project area.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
-----Original Message-----
From: MORMAN GAIL <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 10:30 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Morman Tom <[email protected]>
Subject: A question regarding the size of parcels for 1212-1224 S Winchester [External Email]
Dear Michelle,
Regarding file number AT19-043, Lot Line Adjustment, description shows the combination of the two parcels to be 0.86 gross acre. Everything else, including the parcel map dimensions and the owner project information show 0.69 gross acre. Would you please confirm if 0.86 gross acre is a mistake. If so, can that please be corrected? If 0.86 gross acre is correct, please have the survey show how that was calculated. We want to be sure that the correct property size is used in the request for a lot line adjustment.

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

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

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:42 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Gail Morman; Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Re: Additional questions on 1212 S Winchester project Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for this update. It is difficult to understand the sketch without knowing the points of reference.

For example, your last email showed a photo of the area between 1212 and 1250 S Winchester at the point where Winchester loses a lane. The curb in front of 1212 S Winchester extends 16’ out from the curb along 1250 S Winchester.

Is Winchester Blvd being widened the 16' so that it aligns with the road to the south or does it continue to narrow at this point going north? If you can explain how that is reflected in the diagram, that would be helpful.

Many thanks,
Tom
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:28 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

The applicant provided an exhibit for Winchester Blvd. Please see attached.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
[External Email]

From: Flores, Michelle
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 6:16 PM
To: 'Tom Morman' <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Additional questions on 1212 S Winchester project

Hi Tom,
I have sent your requests to the applicant. Please see responses to the questions below.

1. The setbacks are counted towards the lot size for the FAR calculation.

2. The public right-of-way is not aligned with the property on the south side of the project site (see image below). The project will align the public right-of-way so the sidewalk is consistent with the property below. This will be shown on the civil sheets in the plan set.

3. The Planning permit will approve the on-site building and parking. The details for the public right-of-way are approved after the Planning entitlement.

4. Buildings 65 feet and taller require a 40-foot rear setback.

5. I will ask the applicant.

6. The Fire Department reviews projects for compliance with the Fire Code. They work with the applicant to make sure the meet the Fire requirements.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:50 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: Additional questions on 1212 S Winchester project

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for your email. Could you please clarify the
following:

1. Are the side and rear setbacks also included towards lot size for the FAR calculation?

2. What do you mean when you say the Winchester Blvd is being aligned as part of this project? Will it be aligned or widened to where the curb is along the properties to the south, ie the convalescent center, etc? How much setback there will then be from the new curb?
Can you request a diagram of what is being proposed for the street as well as the setback from where the new curb will be?

3. What does it mean to say that they would need to go
through a separate process to request a loading zone in front of the property site? Is this a pre-condition before going to the Planning Commission for approval since it is clearly marked [External Email]
on their plans as separate "Loading Space" and "Drop-Off" areas in the street area in front of the hotel?

4. Thank you for the calculations regarding how much can go on top of the roof up to 17 feet maximum. Once the structure reaches 65', doesn't this require the 40' rear setback?

5. Can you please request a diagram and/or sketch of what is on the roof, including the dimensions?

6. How does this project meet standards for Fire Department Vehicle Access?
We remember the Santana Row fire. Per Mercury News:
"The fire went to 11 alarms and caused more than $100 million in damage. Embers from that fire ignited roofs half a mile away, destroying more than 30 apartments and townhouses in the Moorpark neighborhood, causing $2.5 million in damage." https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/08/18/santana-row-firefacts/#:~:text=SAN%20JOSE%20%E2%80%94%20A%20decade%20ago,%24500%20million%20project's%2042%20acres.&text=The%20fire%20went%20t o%2011,than%20%24100%20million%20in%20damage.

Many thanks, Michelle.

Tom

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:28 PM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Sorry the late response. I was out of the office for a week and am catching up on my emails. I see what you mean with the site plan stating 26 feet. I will ask the applicant to update the plan set sheets to be consistent with the calculations. The setbacks are counted towards the lot size for the FAR calculation.

Winchester Boulevard is being aligned as part of this project. Any street parking would not count towards the on-site parking requirement. They would need to go through a separate process to request a loading zone in front of the project site.

Per the zoning code, elevator shafts, stairwells, accessible bathrooms, roof canopies, mechanical equipment, screening and safety guard rails may exceed the zoning district height limitation by up to 17 feet if the maximum roof area coverage does not exceed 30% of the total roof area and the mechanical equipment and appurtenances are required for the operation and maintenance of the building.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:39 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Dear Michelle,
Thank you very much for clarifying the lot size and for sending the survey.

Can you please clarify the size of the front right of way easment? Isn't that 26' instead of 25' , as per the owner plan:

FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31'-0")
Are the side and rear setbacks deducted from the lot size in calculating the FAR?
[External Email]
Also, from the photos in the owner plans, it does not appear that Winchester is being widened, but will continue to narrow at
1212 S Winchester. It also appears from the digitalized photo that the "Loading Space" and "Drop-Off" areas are along the street in front of the hotel further narrowing traffic when vehicles are there. Is this correct?
Also regarding the height, the height of the building was lowered by 5 inches in order to obtain a 20' rear setback instead of a 40' setback. However, there are to be at least 3 sizeable structures or enclosures extending well above the roof. Does these exceed the 65' height?
Again, many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman
(408) 666-0581

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:22 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Please see below for the information provided by the applicant. The sheets they used are attached.

Survey of gross area is 30,074.7 SF. The 25 foot setback is 5,267.5 SF (210.7 X 25). A net site area of 24,807.2 SF

In the next resubmittal, I’ll ask the applicant to provide additional information about the property line dimensions and FAR.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Flores, Michelle
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:15 PM
To: 'Tom Morman' <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Tom,

The calculation for the lot size without the streets and sidewalk was provided by the applicant. I will share your calculations with the applicant and have him provide the exact dimensions of the lot he used in his calculation. I believe the applicant used exact measurements so that’s why the calculation he provided is different than the one in your email.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for getting back to me on this.

Can you please check my math:

Dimension of combined parcels: 200 x 146 = 29,200 per
parcel map
Dimension of Public Right of Way: 200 x 26 = 5,200
Size of lot minus 26' right of way = 24,000
[External Email]
Is this not correct?
Thanks, Michelle....

Tom

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:54 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

I updated the project description online. The first submittal was for 118,528 square feet. The project description in the second submittal was revised to 107,079.9 square feet. The floor area used for the FAR calculation is 86,548.5 square feet. The below-ground garage is not counted towards the FAR calculation. The size of the lot without the streets and sidewalks is 24,547.77 square feet.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:08 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Dear Michelle,
Can you please help me with how the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.5 is being determined for the parcels at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd for the proposed hotel?
[External Email]

1. The plans describe total Floor Area as 107,079.9 sq ft. Is this the same as the exterior measurement for square
footage? I am asking because the permit search shows the proposed hotel to be approximately 118,528 sq ft.

2. Are the Right of Way easements being deducted from the lot size in determining the FAR?

3. Could you provide the numbers being used for the building size and the lot size in determining the FAR?
Many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

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

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

From: Jones, Chappie
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 5:06 PM
To: Seshadri Sathyanarayan
Cc: Flores, Michelle; Kohl, Cassidy; Tom Morman
Subject: Re: Concerns about 1212 S Winchester Blvd hotel proposal Seshadri,
Thank you for keeping me in the loop on these communications. We are hearing the input from the community. Cassidy will send out updates on any new developments with the project.

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chappie
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Vice Mayor, City of San Jose - Council District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www.sjdistrict1.com
On Jun 14, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Seshadri Sathyanarayan <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Michelle (cc: Vice Mayor Jones),
I am resident of Woodlawn Ave near Payne.

This is to reiterate the concerns I and many of my neighbors raised during our recent virtual conference call.

As expressed earlier, our primary concern is that the type and size of the hotel structure being proposed is simply not conducive to the small plot at 1212 S Winchester. Given the vision 2040 urban village project guidelines for new buildings on Winchester in this area - mostly mixed use and limited to 2-3 levels, we are still curious how a project of this size was approved and allowed to proceed to this phase.

In addition, I am also concerned about the use of Woodlawn, Castlemont and other side streets as a main road by traffic that gets diverted from Winchester due to construction or parking restrictions associated with the new structure. Vice Mayor Chappie might recall the walk we did with him of these streets about a year ago, highlighting the speeding, parking issues.
[External Email]
We are very concerned that these will only get worse with such a large commercial project going up in such close proximity to what is otherwise a very quiet residential neighborhood - has been that way for over 50 years now! And we love living here because of it.

We hope you will consider these concerns as you re-evaluate the pros/cons of this project in this location.

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

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:36 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Gail Morman; Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Re: follow up questions on 1212-1224 S Winchester

Dear Michelle,
Thank you very much for getting back to me with
the information and the appeal form.

1. Regarding the rooftop structures, can you please have the owner clarify how many elevations and the height of each one? The Roof Plan (A.14) shows 5 elevations; A14 - A.17; A-19.

2. Just to clarify, in your review letter of 10/9/19, "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide on off-street loading space. Section

20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, 15 feet in height." The Owner Plan shows total floor area as 107,079.9 sq ft. Your letter called for the following:
"Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." Is the Owner being required to do this?

3. Regarding Hotel Employees, can you reiterate what was required in your Oct 9th letter: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel.

Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of [External Email]
employees for each use." Please ask the Owner to include kitchen, security, parking including TDM, guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men’s locker room, women’s locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing.

4. The Owner's Fire Plan (C5.0) shows Aerial Access on Winchester with a "hose path" going around the sides and back of the hotel. Would this require an Access Easement?
Many thanks for your help on this, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom & Gail Morman
(408) 666-0581
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:15 PM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

I’m waiting on the applicant to update the plan set to confirm, but based on the information they provided, the stairwell would be the only rooftop equipment and it would be less than 10 feet high. I have asked the applicant to provide loading space information and am waiting on their updated plan set. We are asking them to clarify the employees.

Please see the link below for the form:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=15363

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:50 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Gail Morman <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: follow up questions on 1212-1224 S Winchester

[External Email]

Hi Michelle,
I wanted to be sure you received my email from Friday.

Many thanks,
Tom

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:39 PM Tom Morman <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Michelle,
There are a few questions that remain after Monday's
meeting:

1. What is the height of each roof top structure?

2. Where is the location of the off street loading zone?

3. Are you going to require that the Owner provide what you outlined in your letter of 10/9/19: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use."
One other thing, you were helpful in sending me the appeal application form and I cannot find it. Could you please resend it to me and let me know again the fee to file an appeal? Thank you, Michelle.

Tom
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

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

From: Jones, Chappie
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:15 AM
To: Marlene J Schwilk
Cc: Blanco, Maira; Atienza, Manuel; Flores, Michelle; Kohl, Cassidy Subject: Re: proposed 1212-1224 Winchester Hotel
Thank you Marlene for providing your concerns. I copied Cassidy, from my team, on this email. She can make sure your concerns are communicated to the city’s planning department as well.

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chappie
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Vice Mayor, City of San Jose - Council District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www.sjdistrict1.com
On Jun 15, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Marlene J Schwilk <[email protected]> wrote:

To All Concerned:

I echo the responses of the other residents of this neighborhood. We don't want Winchester Boulevard turned into the appearance of another high-rise downtown at the great expense of the people who currently live in this immediate area.

I agree with Jeffrey Williams that the number of employees in the planning documents is greatly understated. How can 10 employees actually run a 119 room hotel with a manager, front desk staff, housekeeping staff, laundry room, restaurant, coffee bar, Valet, Shuttle Service, and other services. It doesn't seem possible. Hexagon needs to revise their calculations.

Marlene Schwilk
1279 Castlemont Ave.
[External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:39 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie; Gail Morman
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Dear Michelle,
Thank you very much for clarifying the lot size and for sending the survey.

Can you please clarify the size of the front right of way easment? Isn't that 26' instead of 25' , as per the owner plan:

FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31'-0")
Are the side and rear setbacks deducted from the lot size in calculating the FAR?
Also, from the photos in the owner plans, it does not appear that Winchester is being widened, but will continue to narrow at
1212 S Winchester. It also appears from the digitalized photo that the "Loading Space" and "Drop-Off" areas are along the street in front of the hotel further narrowing traffic when vehicles are there. Is this correct?
[External Email]
Also regarding the height, the height of the building was lowered by 5 inches in order to obtain a 20' rear setback instead of a 40' setback. However, there are to be at least 3 sizeable structures or enclosures extending well above the roof. Does these exceed the 65' height?
Again, many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman
(408) 666-0581
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:22 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Please see below for the information provided by the applicant. The sheets they used are attached.

Survey of gross area is 30,074.7 SF. The 25 foot setback is 5,267.5 SF (210.7 X 25). A net site area of 24,807.2 SF

In the next resubmittal, I’ll ask the applicant to provide additional information about the property line dimensions and FAR.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Flores, Michelle
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 5:15 PM
To: 'Tom Morman' <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Tom,

The calculation for the lot size without the streets and sidewalk was provided by the applicant. I will share your calculations with the applicant and have him provide the exact dimensions of the lot he used in his calculation. I believe the applicant used exact measurements so that’s why the calculation he provided is different than the one in your email.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Gail Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Hi Michelle,
Thank you for getting back to me on this.

Can you please check my math:

Dimension of combined parcels: 200 x 146 = 29,200 per parcel map
Dimension of Public Right of Way: 200 x 26 = 5,200
Size of lot minus 26' right of way = 24,000
Is this not correct?
Thanks, Michelle....

Tom

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:54 AM Flores, Michelle <[email protected]> wrote:
[External Email]
Hi Tom,

I updated the project description online. The first submittal was for 118,528 square feet. The project description in the second submittal was revised to 107,079.9 square feet. The floor area used for the FAR calculation is 86,548.5 square feet. The below-ground garage is not counted towards the FAR calculation. The size of the lot without the streets and sidewalks is 24,547.77 square feet.

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:08 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel

Dear Michelle,
Can you please help me with how the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.5 is being determined for the parcels at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd for the proposed hotel?

1. The plans describe total Floor Area as 107,079.9 sq ft. Is this the same as the exterior measurement for square
footage? I am asking because the permit search shows the proposed hotel to be approximately 118,528 sq ft.

2. Are the Right of Way easements being deducted from the lot size in determining the FAR?

3. Could you provide the numbers being used for the building size and the lot size in determining the FAR?
[External Email]
Many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

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

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

From: Jones, Chappie
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM
To: Seshadri Sathyanarayan
Cc: Flores, Michelle; Tom Morman; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Re: Winchester Urban Village plans and neighborhood quality concerns Thank you Seshadri. I also included Cassidy, on my team, on this message.

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chappie
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Vice Mayor, City of San Jose - Council District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www.sjdistrict1.com
On Aug 6, 2020, at 8:24 AM, Seshadri Sathyanarayan <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Vice-Mayor Jones,
Apologies for not being able to attend the call yesterday. I wanted to write and convey some additional thoughts with regard to the hotel project at 1212 S Winchester blvd.

The Winchester Urban Village plan document states the following on page 23 of the document:

The Residential Neighborhood land use designation is applied to a limited number of single-family detached residential properties located on the east side of Winchester Boulevard behind properties that front Winchester Boulevard. The intent of this designation is to preserve the existing character of these neighborhoods and to strictly limit new development to infill projects which closely conform to the prevailing existing neighborhood character as defined by density, lot size and shape, massing and neighborhood form and pattern. New infill development should improve and/ or enhance existing neighborhood conditions by completing the existing neighborhood pattern and bringing infill properties into general conformance with the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood. [External Email]
We have previously expressed concerns that the review and approval process for the hotel project does not appear to have taken into account the guidelines for height and commercial use aspects.

We would like to now draw attention to the designation in the urban village plan document above, that clearly requires that any infill development should improve and/or enhance existing neighborhood conditions and generally conform to the quality and character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Even if the hotel does get built, the quality of the hotel must "enhance or improve the quality of the surrounding neighborhood". We are concerned that there is no mechanism in place for us as citizens to hold the builder to a high level of standard with whatever is built at the site.

Clearly, a poor quality hotel would greatly affect the character of the neighborhood, potentially impacting property values. And we are very concerned that, that could result in residents being forced to leave this area - certainly not what is intended with the urban village and the envision 2040 general plans.

We fully support the urban village plans and look forward to high quality growth on winchester blvd (e.g. true urban village like character with mixed use properties, restaurants, cafes, bookshops etc.), that could only help the neighborhood retain and enhance the quality that has been maintained so well since the 1950s when it was first built.

We truly appreciate your patience in listening to our concerns, and continued support with helping us coordinate these activities.

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

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 11:50 PM
To: Flores, Michelle; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: RE Update on proposal for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

Hi Michelle and Cassidy,
I wanted to check in to see if there have been any
developments on the proposal for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester.

Also can you help me with the following:
1) Is there a mistake on the permit for the Lot Line Adjustment under "Description", to combine "two parcels into one on an approximately 0.86 gross acre site"? The parcel map shows the total dimensions as 206 x 146 = 30,076 or 0.69 ac. Everywhere else on the permit it is listed as approximately 0.69 gross acre site.
2) Will any new development provide a 20 ft sidewalk fronting Winchester?
3) Is it in the plan to widen Winchester in front of 1212 & 1224 S Winchester when this is developed so that the extra lane is in place?
[External Email]
4) Will there be side setbacks for any development here? The adjacent property at 1204 S Winchester appears to be
residential use. Doesn't this require a setback?
Many thanks for your help.

Regards,
Tom Morman
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

From: Mabel Cheng <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 2:31 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Regarding the Hotel Proposal on 1212 and 1214 S. Winchester AVE near San Jose-Campbell border.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am a resident in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed 1212 S Winchester Boulevard hotel development. I, like many of my neighbors, am strongly opposed to the Hotel proposal for the following reasons:

1. As proposed in the development plan, a shadow will be cast on all adjacent houses after 2 pm year round.

2. Windows/balconies at the rear end of the hotel will look directly into the private backyards of neighboring residential homes, which invades our privacy.

3. From what I understand, the proposed 15ft sidewalk extension moves the building closer to the residential property lines making the building more of an obstruction of our view/ the airspace.

Thus, I fear the value of our real estate and home environment will be negatively affected. As a long time resident of this neighborhood, I please ask that you consider the above aforementioned items as well as the impact of additional traffic to an already heavily congested street, especially during Bethel Church's Sunday services (1201 S.

Winchester Blvd).

Best regards,
Mabel Cheng

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

From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 2:34 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie
Subject: Request update on hotel proposal at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester

Dear Michelle,
As you suggested, I wanted to check back on the status of the traffic report for this project.

Can you give me as update on the following?

1. Status of the traffic report. If completed, can you please send it to me?

2. Has the applicant resubmitted revised set of plans?

3. Are there any other developments to the plans for these parcels?
Many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Sincerely,
Tom Morman
--
Tom Morman
408-666-0581
[email protected]

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

From: miyuki one bear <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:26 PM
To: Flores, Michelle; Blanco, Maira
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Subject Line: Comments for 1212 – 1224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19- 038; SP20-016;

Hello,
As of today I do not see any progress regarding the requested data documents from the developer so we as a neighborhood can make an informed decision on what is actually being planned for this space. As a very concerned parent, I represent the moms of this neighborhood (with kids ageing in range from toddlers to teens). We very concerned about the impact on safety in our neighborhood with transient visitor and staff accessing our streets to find parking (if there will not be adequate parking on the site), circling back to the hotel if they miss the entrance causing more speeding and traffic on our already impacted streets, especially Castlemont, noise issues with a bar/restaurant, privacy issues with transient hotel guests and staff being able to see into backyards on Red Oaks and fire safety issues with lack of accessible fire lanes.

Please review the below and let me know when we can see some of the developer's responses, if any.
1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

We have been requesting the traffic report, which has been under review since January (8 months). We are very concerned about traffic congestion.

A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliveries, service needs, Uber/Lyft transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with an elementary school around the corner. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and [External Email]
out. We feel this is inappropriate location for a 6-story hotel. It burdens, rather than serves the community.
2) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner’s estimated number of employees. We suspect that the Owner’s estimate of 10 employees is understated. An on-line search for estimates for a hotel with 119 rooms shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The owner’s estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men’s locker room, women’s locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: “Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use.” We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other concerns arise such as quality, safety and security.
3) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129.

This number is based on 119 rooms plus 10 employees. We feel this request for a reduction is grossly inappropriate. We question whether the estimate of 10 employees is realistic, based on on-line sources showing estimates for a similar sized hotel of 119 rooms is 95 employees (for a 3- star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). Vehicle Parking Requirement is 1 per guest room or suite, plus 1 per employee. Hence it seems an appropriate estimate of needed parking spaces is 119 + 95 = 214 parking spaces at the very minimum. We request a review of this estimation of employees and if it is underestimated, the number of required parking spaces needs to be appropriately increased. We feel the current number of required parking spaces, 129, is already not adequate, especially if the number of employees is more realistically 95-238. Hence, we feel the request for reduction in parking spaces is inappropriate. Parking reduction is subject to review of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) plan, which has yet to be completed (has been under review for 8 months). A hotel that cannot provide for its own parking is a burden on a neighborhood already impacted by apartments where people need to share space to afford rents, thereby worsening the availability of parking on neighborhood streets. We have an elementary school, Castlemont, around the corner. Many children walk to school and we are concerned about their safety with increased traffic.

4) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused more than $100 Million in damage. My daughter, 11 years old at the time, remembers walking with friends in the neighborhood and wondering if it was raining as ashes were coming down from the fire more than 1 mile away. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is 20’ from neighboring homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60’ from the rear fence. A fired in this hotel could be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated:
““The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus.” We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the project advances. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is reasonable for the City to allow this project to move forward. 5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Add who this letter is from/to (Review Letter from City to Owner? - its not clear)
Review Letter 10/9/19: “The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network.”
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the “Potential Mid-Block Crossing” (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy. We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward.
6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. (From City to Owner?) Review Letter 10/9/19: “Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section

20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan.” (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The OffStreet Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner. 7) Drop Off” zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: “New developments should include dropoff/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient.” And Policy 6-24: “Ensure that dropoff/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes.” And Policy 6-45:
“Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character.” This seems the most egregious violation – a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones.
8) Privacy/Safety - Height reduced 5” to achieve a 20’ Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65’ hotel by 5 inches to go from a required 40ft setback to a 20’ setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65’.

At least 1 of the roof top structures is at the rear of the building, directly impacting the adjoining residential homes. Owner Plan A.08 shows a sidewalk along the rear fence plus a seating area at the back of the hotel, both within the 20’ setback area.

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5” drop in height to avoid the 40’ setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65’ mandate a 40’ setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors?
Received reply: “The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states ‘non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height’. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets.”
We request to know How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40’ setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors.
9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. We request Planning Dept post all documents.

Regards,
Miyuki One Bear
&
James Yamane
1254 Castlemont Ave

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

From: michael roden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 7:44 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Thoughts on last evening's virtual meeting

Hello Michell;
I would like to add some comments to the inputs received during last evening's virtual meeting.

I am a long time resident of this neighborhood, residing on Greenbriar ave for 34 yrs.

In that time the traffic has increased tremendously, with people using the neighborhood streets as a thruway from Hamilton ave. over to Winchester blvd. The intersection at Payne and Winchester is especially congested in the morning and evening commute hours.

I have witnessed many near accidents between cars and pedestrians at this intersection. Also, have seen several children almost being
run over when walking to Castlemont elementary school. For the city to add a hotel at this location, would only aid in increased congestion. The feeling I got from the advisory speaker was one of not really concerned with the living conditions brought on
to the neighborhood residents. But, his main concern being the completion of the hotel for profit. It does seem like a more thorough study needs to be addressed by the city on the overall neighborhood impact.

A question was also posed about the affect this hotel would have on the neighborhood property values.

The respondent did not
have an adequate answer. I feel the respondent should been prepared to provide this information or a property tax representative should have been present. Knowing how the neighborhood property value is affected is or great concerns to the home owners in this neighborhood.

At this point, I am opposed to the idea being built at this location. As on of the participants pointed out, there are a vast number of
empty building along the Central expressway corridor which would be better suited for a hotel, than located one so close to
a residential neighborhood.

Regards,
Michael Roden
1129 Greenbriar ave

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

A.03 A.05 A.04 A.06 A.07 COVER SHEET 2ND FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN TITLE SHEET BUILDING ELEVATION (FRONT) BUILDING SECTION B-B A.14 A.29 TABLE OF CONTENTS A.01 ARCHITECTURAL A.02 BASEMENT(-1) FLOOR PLAN A.00 A.30 BUILDING SECTION A-A MATERIAL BOARD PROJECT INFORMATION SITE PHOTOS BIRD VIEW RENDERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE L.01 L.02 L.03 L.04 VICINITY MAP PARKING RAMP PLAN A.09 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 6TH FLOOR PLAN 5TH FLOOR PLAN 4TH FLOOR PLAN 3RD FLOOR PLAN WINCHESTER HOTEL BUILDING RENDERING BUILDING RENDERING FIRST FLOOR PLAN A.15 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19 A.20 A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 A.26 A.28 A.08 BUILDING ELEVATION (RIGHT) BUILDING ELEVATION (REAR) BUILDING ELEVATION (LEFT) FIRST FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN SITE IMAGERY PLANTING IMAGERY COVER SHEET A.00 SHADOW STUDY SITE PLAN TRANSPARENCY STUDY SHADOW STUDY SURVEY S.01 SURVEY PLAN 1224&1212 ,S.WINCHESTER BLVD. , SAN JOSE, CA 95128 FIRST FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN BUILDING RENDERING JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 6-6-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/20192 REV-2 05/15/2020 CIVIL ENGINEERING C1.0 C2.0 C3.0 TITLE SHEET GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN DEMOLITION PLAN C3.1 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C4.1 MEDIA FILTRATION DETAILS C4.0 SECTION & DETAILS STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS C4.2 A.25 BUILDING RENDERING L.05 TREE MITIGATION A.27 BIRD VIEW RENDERING C5.0 FIRE LAYOUT SP20-016
408-921-1882 30025 ALICIA PKWY SAM MONFARED MASOUMI [email protected] DESIGNER : 949-553-0548 310-795-4009 2881 HEMLOCK AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95128 LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 E-MAIL : OWNER : E-MAIL : CIVIL ENGINEER: E-MAIL : CONTACT : LANDSCAPE ENGINEER : PHADAM ASKARI [email protected] JMH WEISS, INC. 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 [email protected] Dj Edwards. PE. QSD 408-790-4982 APPLICANT: TITLE SHEET A.01 401 FIELDCREST DRIVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95123 HENRY CORD408-283-7292 408-307-0166 CORD ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE SERVICES CA BROKER LIC. 01176923 SCALE : 1"=500' SURVEY ENGINEER : MKessler & ASSOCIATES ONE VENTURE SUITE 130, IRVINE , CA 92618 949 -339
-5330 SITE E-MAIL : [email protected]
PH : (650) 492-3249 SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY HILLS - CA 90210 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/20192 REV-2 05/15/2020 SCALE : 1"=500' SITE SP20-016
PROJECT INFORMATION & TABLES A.02 PROJECT ADDRESS : TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : BUILDING CLASSIFICATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OWNER : ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. : LOT SIZE : ADAM ASKARI Type I-A & III-A Urban Village FRONT SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK REAR SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31'-0") 6'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT : 64'-7" 20'-0" GOVERNMENT BODY : 6'-0" PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop an 6-story hotel (up to a height of 64'7" feet) with up to 119 guestrooms. The first floor would contain the main lobby reception area, guest luggage storage, coffee station and bar area, 2 office rooms , accounting, management, employees break room, men locker room, women locker room,fire control room, laundry, security, fire pomp room, electrical room, and 11 guest rooms. Common outdoor areas for hotel guests are proposed to be located on 2nd floor that contain gym and lockers, jacuzzi, steam room, restaurant area and kitchen. 18 guest rooms would also be located on 2nd floor. Floors 3 through 6 would contain guest rooms that would range from approximately 270 to 770 square feet in size. A total of 66 parking spaces are provided. Parking is provided by one underground parking level which is using double parking system , which will be supported by a TDM plan. A 20 feet rear setback and 6 feet side setback is provided, and additional sidewalk easements will be provided to allow for 20 feet sidewalk are provided on Winchester avenue. HOTEL 279-17-020 & 279-17-021 ROOM MATRIX SETBACK TABULATION 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR LOBBY & COFFEE SHOP& OFFICE& RECEPTION TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS PARKING & FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS + HOTEL ROOMS & SECURITY & LAUNDRY HOTEL ROOMS& RESTAURANT/COFFEE SHOP FLOOR USE FLOOR AREA +GYM/STEAM ROOM & JACUZZI FLOOR AREA TABLE sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. REQUIRED 1 PER ROOM & OFFICE 1 PER 1 EMPLOYEE 119 SPACES 10 SPACES TOTAL PROJECT REQUIREMENT PARKING TABLE -WINCHESTER HOTEL RATIO HOTEL ROOMS 119 ROOMS PARKING REDUCTION PARKING PROVIDED BICYCLE & MOTORCYCLE TABLE - WINCHESTER HOTEL 0 % PROVIDED 7 SPACES REQUIRED 12 SPACES 1 SPACE TOTAL PROJECT REQUIREMENT 13 SPACES BICYCLE RATIO REQUESTED TDM REDUCTION BICYCLE BICYCLE MOTORCYCLE 7 SPACES MOTORCYCLE 37 SPACES BICYCLE 8 SPACES MOTORCYCLE 10 EMPLOYEES 129 SPACES EMPLOYEES & OFFICE HOTEL ROOMS EMPLOYEES 1 PER 20 CODE REQUIRED OCCUPANCY GROUP : R1 1 PER 10 ROOMS 1 PER 10 EMPLOYEES PARKING TABLE -WINCHESTER HOTEL8 PARKING TABULATION UNDERGROUND PARKING LEVEL (SINGLE) SPACE REQUESTED TDM REDUCTION 6629 66 63 48.0 % UTILITY ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS TOTAL 1224&1212 S.WINCHESTER BLVD. , SAN JOSE, CA 95128 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 6-9-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 20531.4 15512.9 15282.3 16062.3 16062.3 12657.9 10970.8 107079.9 Type I-A Type III-A Type III-A Type III-A Type III-A Type III-A Type I-A UNDERGROUND PARKING LEVEL (DOUBLE) sq.ft. KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY CITY OF SAN JOSE 30,074.52 SQ. FT.

SP20-016
JACUZZI WINCHESTER BLVD SITE PLAN A.03 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-5-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED 6-STORY TYPE IA&IIIA 119GUEST ROOMS HOTEL OVER 1 LEVEL OF TYPE IA GARAGE FIRST FLOOR FINISH=164' . 6' HIGH WOODEN FENCE TOP OF CONCRETE CURB

SIDE WALK

FRONT SETBACK

BACK YARD SETBACK COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK SIDE SETBACK SP20-016
VICINITY MAP 1. CASTLEMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • 3040 PAYNE AVE. 3. GROCERY OUTLET BARGAIN MARKET • 3140 WILLIAMS RD. 5. PACIFIC OAKS COLLEGE IN SAN JOSE • 1245 S WINCHESTER BLVD. 6. A GRACE SUBACUTE & SKILLED CARE • 1250 S WINCHESTER BLVD. 2. MARIJANE HAMANN PARK • 2747 WESTFIELD AVE. 4. BETHEL CHURCH OF SAN JOSE •1201 S WINCHESTER BLVD. 1 4 2 3 SITE 5 6 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 VICINITY MAP A.04 SP20-016
SITE PHOTOS A.05 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 SP20-016
MOTORCYCLE AREA A-16 B-B A-15 A-A P 4,5 EGRESS STAIR BOX TO LOBBY GUEST ELEVATOR 60"X54" F P 6,7 P 8,9 P 24,25 SLOPE 9.5% - 9'-0" F.F. -13'-0" F.F. P 57,58 P 2 P 3 P 1 P 12,13 P 10,11 P 14,15 P 16,17 P 18,19 P 20,21 P 22,23 P 26,27 P 28,29 P 30,31 P 32,33 P 34 P 35,36 P 37,38 P 41,42 P 45,46 P 39,40 P 47,48 P 49,50 P 61,62 P 59,60 P 55,56 -13'-0" F.F. P 65,66 P 43,44 P 63,64 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A.06 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-5-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY VAN PARKING 2 P 54 P 53 P 52 P 51 47 23 PERM BICYCLE PARKING 1-TIER 4 PERM BICYCLE PARKING 1-TIER 100 SF WORK SPACE (5' X 20') EV PARKING EV PARKING 10 7 6 3 1 DBA 4 C 5 2 E 12 11 9 8 EV PARKING 3 UTILITY ROOM 1658 EGRESS STAIR BOX 75"X120" UP 23R parking path of egress travel < 100' parking path of egress travel < 100' SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED PARKING RAMP PLAN A.07 26'-0" W DRIVING AISLE SLOPE 10% 26'-0" W DRIVING AISLE SLOPE 20% 26'-0" W DRIVING AISLE SLOPE 10% RAMP LENGTH = 8'- 0" F.F. - 9'-0" F.F. ± 0.00 RAMP LENGTH = 37'- 0" START RAMP END OF RAMP RAMP LENGTH = 8'- 0" D3 B3 BASEMENT -1 RAMP SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-9-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 10 7 6 3 1 DBA 4 C 5 2 E 12 11 9 8 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A.08 LOBBY (CHECK-IN) RECEPTION

COFFEE SHOP & BAR LOBBY ENTRANCE OFFICE OFFICE EGRESS STAIR BOX LUGGAGE GUEST STORAGE SECURITY TRASH LOCKER ROOM MEN LOCKER ROOM WOMEN GUEST ELEVATOR GUEST ELEVATOR 26R
UP 60"X54" UP 26R DROP-OFF FIRE CONTROL ROOM TO LOBBY GUEST ELEVATOR 60"X54" SLOPE 10% SLOPE 20% KING ROOM#109 KING ROOM#107 ROOM#108 ROOM#110 ACCESIBLE QUEEN KING KING ROOM#106 KING ROOM#111 KING ROOM#103 KING ROOM#101 ROOM#102 ROOM#104 KING KING KING ROOM#105 FIRE POMP ROOM ELECTRICAL ROOM LAUNDRY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING ROOF OUTLINE SIDE WALK EMPLOYEE BREAK ROOM DROP-OFF 215'-6" 61'11"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL A-16 B-B A-15 A-A SP20-016
KING ROOM#206 GYM STEAM ROOM KING ROOM#204 ROOM#205 ROOM#207 KING KING JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-3-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 ROOM#202 ACCESIBLE QUEEN ACCESSIBLE KING KITCHEN KING PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A.09 ROOM#203 KING ROOM#208 ROOM#209 LOCKER MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO LOCKER MICRO UP A-16 B-B A-15 A-A EXIT EXIT
18R
26R
DN 18RUPDN 26R JACUZZI VOID RESTAURANT ROOM#210 ROOM#211 ROOM#212 QUEEN KINGKING ROOM#213 QUEEN MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO HOUSE KEEPINGQUEEN ROOM#201 ROOM#217 ROOM#218 KING MICRO MICRO KING ROOM#214 QUEEN ROOM#215 QUEEN MICRO MICRO ROOM#216 QUEEN MICRO KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY 215'-6" 162'-11">215'-6"/3=71'-10" 60'7"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL 194'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE SP20-016
JACUZZI ROOM#311 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-3-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 KING ROOM#302 MICRO KING ROOM#304 MICRO KING ROOM#306 MICRO KING ROOM#303 MICRO KING ROOM#305 MICRO KING ROOM#307 MICRO KING ROOM#309 MICRO KING ROOM#308 MICRO KING ROOM#310 MICRO KING QUEEN ROOM#301 ROOM#313 ROOM#314 ROOM#318 ROOM#317 ROOM#316 ROOM#315 ROOM#319 ROOM#322 ROOM#323 KING MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO KING ONE BEDROOM KING KING KING KING QUEEN PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN A.10 MICRO
MICRO MICRO A-16 B-B A-15 A-A EXIT EXIT 18RUPDN 26R ROOM#324 ROOM#325 ROOM#326 KING KING KING MICRO
MICRO
MICRO ROOM#327

MICRO KING
18R
UP
26R
DN HOUSE KEEPING ROOM#321 KINGQUEEN
MICRO ROOM#312 KING ROOM#320 MICRO ONE BEDROOM KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY 215'-6" 162'-11">215'-6"/3=71'-10" 194'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 60'7"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL SP20-016
PROPOSED 4TH FLOOR PLAN A.11
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-3-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 MICRO ONE BEDROOM MICRO ROOM#410 ROOM#417 ROOM#411 ROOM#415 ROOM#414 ROOM#413 ROOM#412 ROOM#416 MICRO

MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO
MICRO KING KING QUEEN ONE BEDROOM KING KING KING KING ROOM#403 ROOM#404 ROOM#407 KING KING ROOM#405 ROOM#406 KING ROOM#408 KING ROOM#402 ROOM#419 MICRO QUEEN ROOM#401
MICRO
MICRO KING ONE BEDROOM MICRO EXIT 18RUPDN 26R
18R
UP
26R
DN HOUSE KEEPING ACCESSIBLE KING ROOM#409 ROOM#418 QUEEN MICRO ACCESSIBLE QUEEN JACUZZI KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY MICRO
215'-6" 194'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 162'-11">215'-6"/3=71'-10" 54'7"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL KING ROOM#516 ROOM#520 KING ROOM#518 KING KING KING MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO ROOM#521
MICRO KING ROOM#517 ROOM#519 A-16 B-B A-15 A-A
SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-3-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED 5TH FLOOR PLAN A.12 ROOM#512 ROOM#508 ROOM#506 MICRO ONE BEDROOM KING KING D.W ROOM#504 ONE BEDROOM#503 MICRO ROOM#510 KING MICRO ROOM#513 ROOM#507 MICRO MICRO QUEEN KING ROOM#502 ONE BEDROOM MICRO D.W ROOM#501 MICRO MICRO ROOM#509 KING MICRO ONE BEDROOM ROOM#511 KING MICRO MICRO MICRO ROOM#505 EXIT 18RUPDN 26R
18R
UP
26R
DN HOUSE KEEPING KING ROOM#516 ROOM#520 KING ROOM#518 KING KING KING MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO ROOM#514
MICRO ONE BEDROOM ROOM#521

MICRO KING
MICRO KING ROOM#517 ROOM#519 ONE BEDROOM ACCESSIBLE KING ROOM#515 KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY A-16 B-B A-15 A-A MICRO JACUZZI 215'-6" 194'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 162'-11">215'-6"/3=71'-10" 65'< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-3-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 ROOM#603 ROOM#604 ROOM#611 ROOM#605 ROOM#612 MICRO MICRO MICRO MICRO KING ONE BEDROOM ONE BEDROOM QUEEN KING PROPOSED 6TH FLOOR PLAN A.13 ROOM#608 KING MICRO ROOM#609 KING MICRO ROOM#610 KING MICRO A-16 B-B A-15 A-A EXIT 18RUPDN 26R 18R
UP
26R

DN HOUSE KEEPING
MICRO KING ROOM#614 ROOM#618 ROOM#615 KING ROOM#617 KING KING KING ROOM#616 MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO
MICRO ROOM#619
MICRO KING ROOM#602

MICRO KING
MICRO ROOM#601 KING ROOM#613 ACCESSIBLE KING KING QUEEN 13.4% 10.9% 119 6th FLOOR 2nd FLOOR TOTAL 5th FLOOR 4th FLOOR 3rd FLOOR HOTE ROOM _ TOTAL BASEMENT FLOOR -1 1st FLOOR _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 TYPE OF ROOMS PARKING _ _ 27 FLOORS HOTEL ROOMS HOTEL ROOMS ONE BEDROOM SUITE 2 3 PERCENT _ 1 6 100% 1 HOTEL ROOMS _ 1 18 75.6% ACCESSIBLE KING ACCESSIBLE QUEEN COMMON AREA 22151315_ 311 1 222319 85 5 14 2 13 __ 10 6 _ HOTEL ROOMS 1 _ _ _ 2 _ 3 10 1 11 LOBBY STORAGE MICRO JACUZZI 215'-6" 194'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE 162'-11">215'-6"/3=71'-10" 65'< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL TERRACE SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-3-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/20192 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A.14 A-16 B-B A-15 A-A JACUZZI SLOPE
1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12" SLOPE 1/2" PER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12"
215'-6"
SP20-016

SECTION A-A
PROPERTY LINE UTILITY ROOM PARKING KING ROOM MANAGEMENT RECEPTION GYM KING ROOM KING ROOM KING ROOM KING ROOM KING ROOM KING ROOM JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 Section A-A A.15 +4+5-1+1+3+6+2 KING ROOM SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/20192 REV-2 05/15/2020 RECEPTION QUEEN ROOM OFFICE WOMEN (CHECK-IN) COFFEE SHOP & BAR PARKING OFFICE LOCKER ROOM JACUZZI ACCESSIBLE KING SECTION B-B

PROPERTY LINE LUGGAGE GUEST STORAGESTEAM ROOM QUEEN ROOM ACCESSIBLE KING PROPERTY LINE Section B-B A.16 +4+5-1+1+3+6+2
SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION (FRONT) A.17 PROPERTY LINE +4+5+1+3+6+2 FRONT white plexi glass and light stand less wire hard cover electrical wire WINCHESTER HOTEL WINCHESTER HOTEL WOOD FACADE NATURAL WOOD STUCCO SAND ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING WHITE EXPOSED CONCRETE GRAY SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION (LEFT SIDE) A.18

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE +4+5+1+3+6+2 LEFT SIDE WOOD FACADE NATURAL WOOD STUCCO SAND ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING WHITE EXPOSED CONCRETE GRAY SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION (REAR) A.19 +4+5+1+3+6+2 REAR WOOD FACADE NATURAL WOOD STUCCO SAND ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING WHITE EXPOSED CONCRETE GRAY SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION (RIGHT SIDE) A.20

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE +4+5+1+6+3+2 RIGHT SIDE WOOD FACADE NATURAL WOOD STUCCO SAND ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING WHITE EXPOSED CONCRETE GRAY SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED MATERIAL BOARD A.21 ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING STUCCO SAND WHITE EXPOSED CONCRETE GRAY WOOD FACADE NATURAL WOOD JACUZZI WINCHESTER BLVD PROPOSED 6-STORY TYPE IA&IIIA 120GUEST ROOMS HOTEL OVER 1 LEVEL OF TYPE IA GARAGE FIRST FLOOR FINISH=164' SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING RENDERING A.22 JACUZZI WINCHESTER BLVD PROPOSED 6-STORY TYPE IA&IIIA 120GUEST ROOMS HOTEL OVER 1 LEVEL OF TYPE IA GARAGE FIRST FLOOR FINISH=164' SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING RENDERING A.23 JACUZZI WINCHESTER BLVD PROPOSED 6-STORY TYPE IA&IIIA 120GUEST ROOMS HOTEL OVER 1 LEVEL OF TYPE IA GARAGE FIRST FLOOR FINISH=164' SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING RENDERING A.24 JACUZZI WINCHESTER BLVD PROPOSED 6-STORY TYPE IA&IIIA 120GUEST ROOMS HOTEL OVER 1 LEVEL OF TYPE IA GARAGE FIRST FLOOR FINISH=164' SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BUILDING RENDERING A.25 JACUZZI WINCHESTER BLVD PROPOSED 6-STORY TYPE IA&IIIA 120GUEST ROOMS HOTEL OVER 1 LEVEL OF TYPE IA GARAGE FIRST FLOOR FINISH=164' SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BIRD VIEW RENDERING A.26 SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED BIRD VIEW RENDERING A.27 SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED SHADOW STUDY A.28 AUTUMN 9 AM AUTUMN 10 AM AUTUMN 12 AM AUTUMN 2PM AUTUMN 4PM WINTER 9AM WINTER 10AM WINTER 12AM WINTER 2PM WINTER 4PM AUTUMN WINTER SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-19-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED SHADOW STUDY A.29 SPRING 8AM SPRING 10AM SPRING 12AM SPRING 2PM SPRING 5PM SUMMER 8AM SUMMER 10AM SUMMER 12AM SUMMER 2PM SUMMER 5PM SPRING SUMMER SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: WINCHESTER HOTEL PD REZONING PERMIT SET-05 12 2020 PLOT DATE: 5-21-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 PROPOSED TRANSPARENCY STUDIO A.30 transparent area : 470.20sq ft transparent area : transparent area : transparent area : transparent area : transparent area : total transparent area : 1871.66 sq ft total surface area : 2925 sq ft total solid area : 1053.34 sq ft total transparency rate : 63 % Solid Area Transparent Area PROPERTY LINE +2
PROPERTY LINE west elavation 502.45sq ft 329.49sq ft 130.50sq ft 364.87sq ft 74.15sq ft SP20-016
PROPOSED SURVEY PLAN S.01 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: FOR CIVIL PLOT DATE: 6-6-20 REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/20192 REV-2 05/15/2020 SITE REVISIONS
SP20-016
SP20-016
z
0 E
0 w
z
;;:
0 �
:g
N
w
�
w
:,
w J
;;:
'
QUEEN
ROOM#201
I 60'7"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL
l}D,
KING
ROOM#218
KING
ROOM#217
' '
' '
' '
.
'
'
'
'
0 "
0 "
'
' '
C(I
1, O' \ / o,._.•--1,�-
' '
---
-
-

HOUSE KEEPING

KITCHEN
-1
< ra 0
0 '
'
I
;,
'
'
f:

MICR

ACCESSIBLE KING
ROOM#202
"
'
'
'
LOCKER
.3 PRU CAR
LAUREL
24" Box
GYM
I'
I I
I I
/
w I
'
'
l
1 ____________ ____ 194'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ------------,c ___________ _
I
/
/
RESTAURANT. ·
,,,.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ .-
VOID
_r1
LOCKER
I

WAS FIL

CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
18' TRUNK
Ml RO

ACCESIBLE QUEEN
ROOM#203
" '
' '
' '
' '
' ' ' '
' '
' ---�
KING
ROOM#204
1G :J
/ I

MICRO MICRO
--- --------------- --- --------------- --
--- --------------- --- ---------------
--- --- --------------- --------------- -- ------ --------------- --------------- --- --- --------------- --------------- --
--- --------------- --
--- --------------- --
�
';:: . ·-·-. . . . .. ·
-· . j
--. .../
�•
-
6 "
@-71'
-�0_, - .
162·
- .. -· ..
-
----
------.-�
-�-· -
-----
QUEEN
ROOM#216
MICllO MICH(
QUEEN
ROOM#215

BAM TEX

TIMBER BAMBOO
15 GAL
7 KING
ROOM#205
",
/
QUEEN
ROOM#214

MICOO MICH(
KING
ROOM#206
,------­
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L ______ _
STEAM
ROOM
./
QUEEN
ROOM#213
n

MICRO MICA
KING.·
/R00M#207
�. f]
\
... EXIT
QUEEN
ROOM#212
MICllO
MICRO
Outdoor Tables & Chairs Chaise Lounges
Slat Wood Decking
on Podium
KING
ROOM#209
)
KING
ROOM#208
KING
ROOM#210
KING
ROOM#211

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: ( 408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS - CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& _REY.=:

L1JLOJl20J.9�-­
�-HE.V�2 05L1512020 __
L ______
;\
;'\\
_________ _
L

L L----
-
L
L
�------ /\
L
/\

PROPOSED

LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.02
CX)
('f)
0 I
O')
1 I SP20-016
PROPOSED FURNITURE IMAGERY L.03 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: LANDSCAPE 12 05 2020 FINAL EDITION REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 H19 - 038 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 Bike Rack Slat Wood Decking on Podium Concrete Sidewalk Precast Concrete Pavers JACUZZI Natural Gray Color Wooden Bench Bollard Lights Bike Rack Wooden Bench Concrete Sidewalk Natural Gray Color Outdoor Statue Outdoor Statue Outdoor Tables & Chairs Chaise Lounges SP20-016
PROPOSED PLANTING IMAGERY L.04 NOTICE: THE ABOVE PLANTS HAVE BEEN SELECTED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OVERALL PLANTING DESIGN INTENT. THIS PLANT PALETTE IS BEING SUGGESTED FOR USE, BUT SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE USE OF OTHER APPROPRIATE PLANT MATERIAL. OTHER COMPATIBLE VARIETIES OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS SHOULD BE SELECTED TO COMPLEMENT THE CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANTS ON STORMWATERS AREA. JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: LANDSCAPE 12 05 2020 FINAL EDITION REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 H19 - 038 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 MAR ARB CER OCC LAG IND ACE PLA GIN BIL QUE FRA TREES KEY WAS FIL PRU CAR BAM TEX 123456789 24" BOX SIZE 24" BOX 24" BOX 36" BOX 24" BOX 24" BOX 24" BOX 18" BOX 15 GAL BOTANICAL NAME QUERCUS FRAINETTO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS GINKGO BILOBA ACER PALMATUM LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA ARBUTUS U 'MARINA' PRUNUS CAROLINIANA WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA BAMBUSA TEXTILIS COMMON NAME ITALIAN OAK WESTERN REDBUD GINKGO JAPANESE MAPLE CREPE-MYRTLE STRAWBERRY TREE LAUREL CALIFORNIA FAN PALM TIMBER BAMBOO QUANTITY 3254258611 SPACING COMMENTS/ NATIVE CALIFORNIA RATING WUCOLS NATIVE NATIVE MEDIUM STD. MULTI MULTI NCRTCCCT SHURBS KEY 1234 1 GAL SIZE BOTANICAL NAME CEANOTHUS THYRSIFLORUS COMMON NAME BLUE BLOSSOM SWORD FERN BUSH ANEMONE TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY SPACING COMMENTS/ NATIVE CALIFORNIA RATING WUCOLS NATIVE NATIVE LOW 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL GRASSES GROUND COVER VINES 5678910 JPLCSMSDCCBO 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL LOW NATIVE LOW 60" O.C 18" O.C 'REPENS VICTORIA' NEPHROLEPIS CORDIFOLIA CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA ROSEMARINUS OFFICIANALIS 'TUSCAN BLUE' LEYMUS CONDENSATUS JUNCUS PATENS SATUREJA DOUGLASII SENECIO MANDRALISCAPE CLYTOSTOMA CALESTOIGES BOUGANVILLEA 'CALIFORNIA GOLD' CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH YERBA BUENA BLUE CHALK STICKS BOUGANVILLEA TRUMPET VINE *5 GALLON UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SP20-016
PROPOSED PLANTING IMAGERY L.05 JMH WEISS, INC. LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHILA YASMEH 628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY mailto:[email protected] CIVIL ENGINEER 1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880 San Jose, CA 95110 TEL: (408) 790-4982 [email protected] TEL: (650) 492-3249 CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP Sam Monfared 30025 ALICIA PKWY LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677 TEL: (310) 795-4009 [email protected] FILE NAME: LANDSCAPE 12 05 2020 FINAL EDITION REVISIONS OWNER Adam Askari TEL: (408) 921-1882 [email protected] 2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose HILLS - CA 90210 1 REV-1 11/01/2019 H19 - 038 2 REV-2 05/15/2020 123456789 BOTANICAL NAME WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA FRAXINUS AMERICANA CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS LIGUSTRUM SP COMMON NAME MEXICAN FAN PALM COAST LIVE OAK ASH WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH PRIVET NATIVE CALIFORNIA TREE NO. (at 54" above grade) DBH (1 to 5) Tree Health 101112131415161718 BOTANICAL NAME PERSEA AMERICANA CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA COMMON NAME AVOCADO CAMPHOR CYPRESS TREE NO. 343333344 444433244 WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM 14" 18" 8" CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH 11" 12" 15" CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH 10" 20" 8" LIGUSTRUM SP PRIVET LIGUSTRUM SP PRIVET 15" LIGUSTRUM SP PRIVET 22" 9" 30" PERSEA AMERICANA AVOCADO LIGUSTRUM SP PRIVET CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA CYPRESS 36" 10" ROBINIA PSEUDOACACIAN LOCUST 25" 12" 34" NATIVE NATIVE NATIVE Orchard NATIVE NATIVE NATIVE Orchard TREE Replacement Ratios Circumference of Less than 19" inches 38 inches or more 19 to 38 inches Tree to be Removed Type of Tree to be Removed NATIVE NATIVE Orchard Non- 5:1 4:1 3:1 3:1 1:1 2:1 1:1 None None Minimum Size of Each Replacement Tree 15-gallon 15-gallon 15-gallon X:X = tree replacement to tree loss ratio Note: Trees greater than or equal to 38-inch circumference shall not be removed unless a Tree removal Permit, or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees. For Multi-Family residential, Commercial and Industrial properties, a permit is required for removal of trees of any size. A 38-inch tree equal 12.1 inches in diameter. A 24-inch box tree = two 15-gallon trees. Single Family and Two-dwelling properties may be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. TREE MITIGATION ANALYSIS/PROGRAM Using the chart below, there are a total of 32 mitigation trees required. 1-Non-Native 38" + tree 1-Native 19"-38" tree 1-Non-Native 19"-38" tree Mitigation Requirement 432032 The plan proposes 46 new trees total, meeting the mitigation requirement. TREE DISPOSITION LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE NUMBER PER ARBORIST REPORT PROPOSED TREE TREE #N EXISTING TREES EXISTING TREES NOTE : SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR TREE PROTECTION NOTES 4-Native 38" + trees 20 1-Orchard 38"+ tree 1-Orchard 19"-38" trees 3 Tree #8 DBH 8" Tree #4 DBH 11" Tree #7 DBH 10" Tree #6 DBH 15" Tree #5 DBH 12" Tree #9 DBH 20"Tree #10 DBH 15" Tree #16 DBH 25" Tree #17 DBH 12" Tree #18 DBH 34" Tree #12 DBH 9" Tree #13 DBH 30" Tree #15 DBH 10" Tree #14 DBH 36" Tree #2 DBH 18" Tree #1 DBH 14" NATIVE CALIFORNIA (at 54" above grade) DBH (1 to 5) Tree Health TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN Tree Mitigation Tree Mitigation NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE NON NATIVE LOBBY (CHECK-IN) RECEPTION

COFFEE SHOP & BAR LOBBY ENTRANCE OFFICE OFFICE EGRESS STAIR BOX LUGGAGE GUEST STORAGE SECURITY TRASH LOCKER ROOM MEN LOCKER ROOM WOMEN GUEST ELEVATOR GUEST ELEVATOR 26R
UP 60"X54" UP 26R DROP-OFF FIRE CONTROL ROOM TO LOBBY GUEST ELEVATOR 60"X54" SLOPE 10% SLOPE 20% KING ROOM#109 KING ROOM#107 ROOM#108 ROOM#110 ACCESIBLE QUEEN KING KING ROOM#106 KING ROOM#111 KING ROOM#103 KING ROOM#101 ROOM#102 ROOM#104 KING KING KING ROOM#105 FIRE POMP ROOM ELECTRICAL ROOM LAUNDRY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING ROOF OUTLINE EMPLOYEE BREAK ROOM 61'11"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL SP20-016
SLOPE 10% SLOPE 20%
1212 & 1224 S. WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

SHEET INDEX

SITE ADDRESS
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

DATUM NOTES:

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
ABBREVIATION:

LEGEND: JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020
SITE
1224 S WINCHESTER BLVD
APN 27917020

TITLE SHEET
C1.0
1212 S WINCHESTER BLVD
APN 27917021

SURVEY NOTES
SP20-016

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020

DEMOLITION
PLAN
C2.0
GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES: LEGEND
NOTES:

SP20-016
SLOPE 10% SLOPE 20%
FF 164.52
GARAGE FF 151.52
GARAGE PAD 150.60 C C A A B B D D EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING STRUCTURE FF
164.09
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020

GRADING,

DRAINAGE,

AND UTILITY
PLAN
C3.0

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY NOTES

RESPONSIBILITY TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTIMATE
APPROXIMATE. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S
NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE

EARTH WORK QUANTITIES
FILL:

CUT:

EXPORT:

IMPORT:

QUANTITIES FOR HIS/HER OWN USE.
11,000 CY**
0 CY**
11,000 CY**
0 CY**
**NUMBERS ASSUME 11" PAD FOR GARAGE SLAB
SP20-016
C
HOTEL
1ST FLOOR
FF 164.52

NEW RIGHT
OF WAY
GARAGE
BELOW
D
HOTEL
1ST FLOOR
GARAGE
BELOW

PROPERTY
LINE
A
HOTEL
1ST FLOOR

EXISTING ROW
GARAGE
BELOW

BUILDING EDGE
FLOORS 2-6

NEW RIGHT
OF WAY

CENTERLINE

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
B
HOTEL
1ST FLOOR
GARAGE
BELOW

PROPERTY
LINE
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020

SECTIONS &

DETAILS
C3.1
SP20-016
26RUP
60"X54"
UP
26R
60"X54" SLOPE 10% SLOPE 20% 215'-6"

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020

STORMWATER

CONTROL
PLAN
C4.0
LEGEND
X.X AC X
NOTES
SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020

STORMWATER

CONTROL

NOTES &

DETAILS
C4.1

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
INFORMATION:

I. PROPERTY INFORMATION:

II. RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTENANCE:

TABLE 1

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR MEDIA FILTERS
NO. MAINTENANCE TASK FREQUENCY OF TASK
1 INSPECT FOR STANDING WATER, SEDIMENT, TRASH AND DEBRIS. MONTHLY DURING RAINY SEASON
2 REMOVE ACCUMULATED TRASH AND DEBRIS IN THE UNIT DURING ROUTINE INSPECTIONS.

MONTHLY DURING RAINY

SEASON, OR AS NEEDED AFTER

STORM EVENTS
3 INSPECT TO ENSURE THAT THE FACILITY IS DRAINING COMPLETELY WITHIN FIVE DAYS AND PER MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS.

ONCE DURING THE WET SEASON
AFTER MAJOR STORM EVENT.
4 REPLACE THE MEDIA PER MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS OR AS INDICATED BY THE CONDITION OF THE UNIT.

PER MANUFACTURER’S
SPECIFICATIONS.
5 INSPECT MEDIA FILTERS USING THE ATTACHED INSPECTION CHECKLIST. QUARTERLY OR AS NEEDED STANDARD STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES:

TABLE 1

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR BIORETENTION AREAS
NO. MAINTENANCE TASK FREQUENCY OF TASK
1 REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS, WEEDS, DEBRIS AND TRASH FROM BIORETENTION AREA AND ITS INLETS AND OUTLETS; AND DISPOSE OF PROPERLY.

QUARTERLY, OR AS NEEDED

AFTER STORM EVENTS
2 INSPECT BIORETENTION AREA FOR STANDING WATER. IF STANDING WATER DOES NOT DRAIN WITHIN 2-3 DAYS, TILL AND REPLACE THE SURFACE BIOTREATMENT SOIL WITH THE APPROVED SOIL MIX AND REPLANT.

QUARTERLY, OR AS NEEDED

AFTER STORM EVENTS
3 CHECK UNDERDRAINS FOR CLOGGING. USE THE CLEANOUT RISER TO CLEAN ANY CLOGGED UNDERDRAINS.

QUARTERLY, OR AS NEEDED

AFTER STORM EVENTS
4 MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND ENSURE THAT PLANTS ARE RECEIVING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF WATER (IF APPLICABLE). QUARTERLY
5 ENSURE THAT THE VEGETATION IS HEALTHY AND DENSE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FILTERING AND PROTECT SOILS FROM EROSION. PRUNE AND WEED THE BIORETENTION AREA. REMOVE AND/OR REPLACE ANY DEAD PLANTS.

ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WET

SEASON BEGINS
6 USE COMPOST AND OTHER NATURAL SOIL AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZERS

INSTEAD OF SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS, ESPECIALLY IF THE SYSTEM USES AN UNDERDRAIN.

ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WET

SEASON BEGINS
7 CHECK THAT MULCH IS AT APPROPRIATE DEPTH (2 - 3 INCHES PER SOIL SPECIFICATIONS) AND REPLENISH AS NECESSARY BEFORE WET SEASON BEGINS.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT 2” – 3” OF ARBOR MULCH BE REAPPLIED EVERY YEAR.

ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WET

SEASON BEGINS
8 INSPECT THE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT THE INLET TO ENSURE IT IS FUNCTIONING ADEQUATELY, AND THAT THERE IS NO SCOUR OF THE SURFACE MULCH. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT.

ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WET

SEASON BEGINS
9 INSPECT OVERFLOW PIPE TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN SAFELY CONVEY EXCESS FLOWS TO A STORM DRAIN. REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED PIPING.

ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WET

SEASON BEGINS
10 REPLACE BIOTREATMENT SOIL AND MULCH, IF NEEDED. CHECK FOR STANDING WATER, STRUCTURAL FAILURE AND CLOGGED OVERFLOWS. REMOVE TRASH AND DEBRIS. REPLACE DEAD PLANTS.
11 INSPECT BIORETENTION AREA USING THE ATTACHED INSPECTION CHECKLIST. ANNUALLY, BEFORE THE WET SEASON

TYPICAL BIORETENTION BASIN W/ LINER

BIOTREATMENT SOIL REQUIREMENTS
·
·
PROJECT SITE INFORMATION:

1. SOILS TYPE: B

2. GROUND WATER DEPTH: 55-60' BELOW GROUND SURFACE

3. NAME OF RECEIVING BODY: GUADALUPE

4. FLOOD ZONE: ZONE D

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

SITE DESIGN MEASURES

SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
SP20-016
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020
MEDIA

FILTRATION

DETAILS
C4.2
SP20-016
26R UP
60"X54"
UP
26R
60"X54" SLOPE 10% SLOPE 20%
215'-6"
61'11"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL
FF 164.52 EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING STRUCTURE
JMH WEISS, INC.

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
mailto:[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]
TEL: (650) 492-3249

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]

REVISIONS
OWNER
Adam Askari
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
HILLS - CA 90210
DATE: 06/05/2020

FIRE LAYOUT
C5.0

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

FIRE GENERAL NOTES
FIRE PROTECTION NOTES:

SP20-016