Exhibit D - DOC_IS-MND_RTC — San Jose City Council, August 23, 2022 (part 5 of 5)

Response S1: As discussed on page 171 of the Initial Study, the City sent a letter to tribal representatives in the area to welcome participation in a consultation process for all ongoing, proposed, or future projects within the City’s Sphere of Influence or specific areas of the City in 2017, consistent with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). At the time of preparation of the Initial Study, no Native American tribes that are or have been traditionally affiliated with the project vicinity have requested notification from the City of San Jose, except for projects within the Coyote Valley (approximately 22 miles southeast of the site) or in downtown San José (approximately five miles northeast of the site). Due to the distance of the project site from Coyote Valley and the Downtown Core, the project would not have a significant impact on tribal cultural resources.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
49 July 2021
Nonetheless, the City responded to the request for consultation on June 11, 2021 via email and outlined the type of environmental review necessary for the project, effects of the project, recommended conditions, and general information regarding the project site’s archaeological sensitivity. On July 27, 2021, the City met with Chairwoman Geary via Zoom to discuss the project comments. The City followed up on August 13, 2021 to formally close the consultation process.

The project will modify the following standard permit conditions for inadvertent discovery of subsurface cultural resources (revised language underlined):

In the event that prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee and Historic Preservation Officer of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement will be notified, and a qualified archaeologist in consultation with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission from the City of San Jose and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3 will examine the find. The archaeologist and Native American representative will 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and (2) make appropriate recommendations regarding the disposition of such finds prior to issuance of building permits. If the finds do not meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource, no further study or protection is necessary prior to project implementation. If the find(s) does meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource, then it should be avoided by project activities. Project personnel should not collect or move any cultural material. Fill soils that may be used for construction purposes should not contain archaeological materials.

In addition, the project applicant has agreed to voluntary permit conditions further expanding Native American participation pre-construction and during construction.

Therefore, no further CEQA analysis is required and the comment does not result in new or more significant impacts or additional mitigation and therefore, the IS/MND does not require recirculation.

Comment S2: Additionally, Tamien Nation would like to receive any cultural resources assessments or other assessments that have been completed on all or part of the project’s potential “area of project effect” (APE), including, but not limited to:

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
50 July 2021
▪ Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the potential APE; and ▪ If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
▪ Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage Commission. The request form can be found at http://www.nahc.ca.gov/slf_request.html. USGS

7.5-minute quadrangle name, township, range, and section required for the search.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5.Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Response S2: Because the project site is not within the radius of the Downtown Core or the Coyote Valley and because City-generated GIS data does not identify the project location as an archaeologically sensitive area, the Initial Study did not include CHRIS research or a Sacred Lands File check. Therefore, this information could not be shared with the Tamien Nation as requested. However, as indicated above, after the consultation process, the project applicant agreed to a modified standard permit condition as shown in Response S1, which explicitly includes Native American representation in the event of subsurface tribal cultural finds. Therefore, no further CEQA analysis is required and the comment does not result in new or more significant impacts or additional mitigation and therefore, the IS/MND does not require recirculation.

Comment S3: We would like to remind your agency that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (b)(3) states that preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Section 15126.4, subd. (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines has been interpreted by the California Court of Appeal to mean that “feasible preservation in place must be adopted to mitigate impacts to historical resources of an archaeological nature unless the lead agency determines that another form of mitigation is available and provides superior mitigation of impacts.” Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, disapproved on other grounds, Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439.

Tamien Nation expects to begin consultation within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.

Please contact Tamien Nation’s lead contact person identified in the attached request for notification.

Response S3: The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4 (b), as indicated by the commenter, outlines the consideration and discussion of mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects related to impacts on historical resources. The full discussion under subsection (b)(3) follows:

Public agencies should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following factors shall be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving such an archaeological site:
(A) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
51 July 2021
sites. Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context. Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
(B) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: 1.

Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; 2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; 3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site. 4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. (C) When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Archeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 7050.5 Health and Safety Code. If an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation. (D) Data recovery shall not be required for an historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center.

As discussed in Response S1, the project includes standard permit conditions addressing the treatment of subsurface cultural resources and accidental discovery of human remains. The standard permit condition for the treatment of subsurface cultural resources has been modified to specifically include participation by Native American representative(s) geographically and culturally affiliated with the project site area as described above in Response S1. In addition, the project applicant has agreed to voluntary permit conditions further expanding Native American participation pre-construction and during construction. Therefore, no further CEQA analysis is required and the comment does not result in new or more significant impacts or additional mitigation and therefore, the IS/MND does not require recirculation.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
52 July 2021
SECTION 4 TEXT CHANGES TO THE IS/MND
Page Number Description of Change
64 Standard Permit Conditions. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources (including human remains) are encountered during excavation and construction, the project would implement the following Standard Permit Conditions: a. Subsurface Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Director's designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist in consultation with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission from the City of San Jose and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area, as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3 will examine the find. The archaeologist and Native American representative will 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and (2) make appropriate recommendations regarding the disposition of such finds prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery would be submitted to the Director of PBCE or the Director's designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel should not collect or move any cultural materials. 101 Change #1: Revised to say that Santa Clara County is divided into two subbasins, the Santa Clara Subbasin and Llagas Subbasin, and that the project is in the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Basin. #1: The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is the source for all groundwater in the County and is divided into three two sub-basins: Santa Clara Subbasin Valley, Coyote Valley, and Llagas Subbasin. The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Basin. sub-basin and the San Tomas watershed.

Change #2: Define FEMA Flood Zone D as an area where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.
#2: The site is in FEMA Flood Zone D, which means that there is no analysis of flood hazards. which is an area where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
53 July 2021
108 Change #1: Revised to note that water service to the project site would be provided by San José Water Company, the retailer for this area, not Valley Water, who is the water wholesaler.
#1: Groundwater Supplies. Water service to the project site will be provided by the San José Water Company, the retailer for this area. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), which receives its water supply from several locations including local groundwater, local surface water, and imported treated.

Change #2: The reference to Valley Water’s 18 major groundwater recharge facilities has been removed.
#2: The water district operates and maintains 18 major groundwater recharge facilities in the Santa Clara Valley and diverts water from local reservoirs and imported water to in-stream and off-stream percolation facilities to assist with groundwater recharge in the Santa Clara Valley. 110 The project site is in Zone D under the FEMA Flood Zones which is an area where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. means that there is no analysis of flood hazards conducted in the project site’s area. 151 According to the General Plan EIR Figure 3.9-4, the nearest trail to the project site is the Los Gatos Creek Trail, located approximately 1.5 one miles east of the project site.
154 Change to the two locations that indicate Winchester Boulevard as being a divided six-lane roadway. Revision: Winchester Boulevard is generally a sixlane roadway; however, the segment between Payne Avenue and Williams Avenue provides only five travel lanes (two northbound and three southbound).
167 Based on the City’s parking code requirements, the project would need to provide a total of 129 off-street parking spaces. The project site’s location within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and the project’s provision of the required bicycle parking allows for a 20 percent reduction for vehicle parking with the implementation of a transportation demand management plan. Therefore, the required parking for the project site would be reduced to 63 spaces. The project proposes a total of 67 parking spaces, which is a 49 percent reduction from the total parking reduction. In accordance with Sections 20.70.330 and 20.90.220 of the San José Code of Ordinances ,Municipal Code, which allows up to a 50 percent parking reduction, the additional 32 percent reduction could be allowed with the implementation and maintenance of a transportation demand management plan.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
54 July 2021
Appendix A:
“Project Plans”
On Sheet C4.1 of the project plans, the name of the receiving body listed in the project site information should be corrected from “Guadalupe” to “San Tomas Aquino Creek.”
File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
55 July 2021
SECTION 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS ATTACHMENT
Please see copy of the original comments in Attachment A.

ATTACHMENT A

PUBLIC COMMENTS

County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports Department
Planning, Land Development and Survey
101 Skyport Drive
San Jose, CA 95110-1302
(408) 573-2460 FAX 441-0276
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian, Cindy Chavez County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Comment Letter A
June 10, 2021
Maira Blanco
Planning, Building & Code Enforcement
City of San Jose | 200 East Santa Clara Street
[email protected]
San Jose, CA 95113
SUBJECT: Public Review of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016)
The County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department (The County) appreciates the opportunity to review the Public Review of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (File Nos. C19- 031 & SP20-016), and is submitting the following comments:
• Please provide details for proposed TDM program management and any enforcement/fines for not meeting VMT goals, since this project is close to San Tomas Expressway. • This project and the 1073-1087 South Winchester Boulevard Mixed-Use Project, are in close proximity to each other, combined will generate 100 AM and 116 PM peak hour trips, respectively. The County believes that the Local Transportation Analysis (LTAs) for both projects should include the three following intersections on San Tomas, which are County’s intersections and are within one mile of the proposed projects:
o Hamilton Ave (CMP)
o Payne Ave
o Williams
If you have any questions or concerns about these comments, please contact me at 408-573-2462 or [email protected]
Thank you.

Comment Letter B
From: Jourdan Alvarado <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 5:29 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Colleen Haggerty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Public Review of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016)
Dear Ms. Blanco:

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project, received by Valley Water on May 26, 2021.

The proposed development is not located adjacent or within any Valley Water facilities or right-of-way; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit is not required for this project.

Valley Water has the following comments regarding the project:

1. On Sheet C4.1 of the project plans, the name of the receiving body listed in the project site information should be corrected from “Guadalupe” to “San Tomas Aquino Creek”.

2. Section 4.10.2 on page 101 should be revised to say that Santa Clara County is divided into two subbasins, the Santa Clara Subbasin and Llagas Subbasin, and that the project is in the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Basin. Please refer to Section 1.2 and Figure 1-1 on page 1-2 of the Valley Water 2016 Groundwater Management Plan.

3. Section 4.10.2 on page 101 and Part d of Section 4.10.4 on page 110 should define FEMA Flood Zone D as an area where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible.

4. Part b of Section 4.10.4 on page 108 needs to be revised to note that water service to the project site would be provided by San Jose Water Company, the retailer for this area, not Valley Water, who is the water wholesaler.

5. Part b of Section 4.10.4 on page 108 states that Valley Water has 18 major groundwater recharge facilities. While Valley Water has a complex and interconnected network of groundwater recharge facilities, the reference to the number of facilities should be removed as Valley Water does not categorize groundwater facilities by major or minor and therefore it is not clear how it was determined that there are 18 major facilities.

6. Section 4.16.2 on page 151 should be revised to reflect the correct distance of approximately 1 mile to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

7. Valley Water records do not show any wells on the project site (APN: 279-17-020 and -021); however, it is always possible that a well exists that is not in Valley Water records. Abandoned or unused wells can provide a vertical conduit for contaminants to pollute groundwater. To avoid impacts to groundwater quality, any wells found on-site that will not be used must be properly destroyed in accordance with Ordinance 90-1, which requires issuance of a well destruction permit or registered with Valley Water and protected during construction. Property owners or their representatives should call the Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660 for more information regarding well permits and registration for the destruction of wells.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the IS/MND. If you have any questions, or need further information, you can reach me at (408) 630-2955, or by e-mail at [email protected]. Please reference Valley Water File No. 34457 on future correspondence regarding this project.

Thank you,
[External Email]

JOURDAN ALVARADO, CFM

ASSISTANT ENGINEER II (CIVIL)
Community Projects Review Unit
[email protected]
Tel. (408) 630-2955 CPRU Hotline (408) 630-2650

SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118
www.valleywater.org
Clean Water . Healthy Environment . Flood Protection
Comment Letter C
Jeffrey Williams
1216 Castlemont Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128-4001
June 14, 2021
To All Who are Concerned:

During my review of the documents provided for the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel, Project File Numbers: SP20-016, C19-031, I noticed that in the document entitled MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION that the following finding is presented “The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement finds the project described above would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project.” Further on in that document in the Mitigation Measures section, Item Q - TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC states “The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.” However, after reviewing both the Transportation Analysis, Appendix H, and the Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Appendix I, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. for the 1212 Winchester Development Project, I have a concern that two key assumptions that are the basis for Hexagon’s calculations, employee count and number of parking spaces are incorrect.

Therefore, I question as to how the conclusion made in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION document can be made without further investigation and analysis.

EMPLOYEE COUNT
Specifically, both of these studies provided by Hexagon were made with the assumption that there would be “a maximum of 10 employees on-site”. As the number of employees is a key figure in determining the impact of the project on transportation and parking, and no detail has been provided in the project documents as to how that number is derived, I believe this assumption needs to be thoroughly vetted prior to any conclusions being made.

My concern is that the number of employees listed in the planning documents is significantly understated. (In this analysis I consider employee to be anyone who is working at the hotel on a regular basis whether they be a direct employee, temp or contractor) After reviewing the project plans and researching published hotel staffing requirements and standards, I believe the true staffing requirements to run this proposed hotel during its key business hours is at least 20 employees, and is most likely higher as the need for additional staffing required for the positions discussed below is fully vetted.

Here is the estimated required employee list*
Hotel Manager 1
Accountant 1
Front Desk 2
Housekeeping 11 (includes laundry room worker and a housekeeping supervisor) Valet 2
Shuttle 1
Restaurant 2
___
Total 20
*In preparing the detailed analysis of the staffing requirements, which is attached as Appendix A, I have used the average of employees required as indicated in published hotel standards. For example, the number of housekeeping staff may be lower for properties such as a Motel 6 and maybe higher for properties such as a Westin or Ritz Carlton. I have focused on those required by a mid-range 3-star hotel that primarily serves business customers.

Based upon the calculated staffing levels listed above and the actual parking spaces provided, the project as proposed would require approval for at least a 53% TDM Parking Reduction which exceeds the percentage listed Section 20.90.220.A.1 of the City of San Jose Parking Code, as discussed on Page 10 of the Draft TDM Plan.

Parking reduction calculation:

Hotel Rooms 119
Employees 20
Spaces Required 139
Parking Provided 65* *one space is taken up by the Shuttle Vehicle which reduces the 66 spaces proposed in the project plan as it is on-site all of the time.

Parking Reduction 74
TDM Reduction 53%
Additional Staffing Positions:

Please note that I have not addressed the following employee positions in the above calculation as I did not find enough information in the planning documents to determine how the developer plans to address them: (a) Hotel Engineer/Facilities, (b) Security officer, (c) the plan specifies that there will be a coffee shop/bar, but it is not clear if it is a self-serve area or whether it will require an additional employee per shift, and (d) as the property will only have valet parking, and street parking directly in front of and adjacent to the hotel is extremely limited, it is not clear if a hotel porter(s) will be needed to assist guests and help prevent cars backing up into traffic on a very busy street. If any of the aforementioned positions are required to run the hotel, they would be additive to the employee count and increase the TDM Parking Reduction required.

Additionally, in the documents and reports I reviewed I did not see where shift changes are addressed.

At those times the number of employees on-site could be double the amount listed above which puts an additional strain on the already insufficient parking situation. I believe this affects the critical numbers presented in the Transportation Analysis and the Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan.

The true number of employees on site needs to be determined and fully vetted so Hexagon can update their calculations and a recommendation can be made about the project proceeding forward.

PARKING SPACES
Another assumption that affects both the Transportation Analysis, Appendix H, and the Draft Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, Appendix I, is the true number of parking spaces. In the Transportation Analysis, Appendix H, as prepared by Hexagon, they identified a major issue with the parking area design. On page 50 of their document, under the “Adhere to City of San Jose Design Standards and Guidelines” section, they clearly state that “The proposed parking space dimensions, while not an unusual design, do not meet City standards”.

In reviewing the parking plan on Sheet A-06 of the project plans, I noticed that the double stacking parking spaces designated as P4 through P45, do not meet the requirements of the City of San Jose Parking Code as defined in Section 20.90.060 - Number of parking spaces required Table 20-190 Parking Spaces Required by Land Use, Note 2 which states “Stacking shall be calculated at twenty feet per car”. In the project plans the aforementioned spaces are only 17 feet deep and do not meet the 20- foot requirement. Although the dimensions for the double stacking parking spaces designated as P47 through P51 are not marked on the plans, if one applies a scale to them, it can easily be seen that they also do not meet the 20-foot requirement as required by the City of San Jose Parking Code.

Additionally, the City of San Jose Parking Code, Section 20.90.060 - Number of parking spaces required, Table 20-215 Clean Air Vehicles, states that projects with 51-75 total parking spaces must provide 6 parking spaces be designated for non-residential uses provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient, and carpool or van pool vehicles. The project plan as submitted only provides 4 designated spaces for Clean Air Vehicles and is not in compliance.

The above parking issues need to be addressed and corrected. The number of parking spaces that will be provided after the required design corrections are made, especially the required size for the double stacking spaces, mostly likely will be reduced to less than 66. Any reduction in the number of spaces provided will increase the TDM reduction required for this project and will also have a negative impact on the calculated numbers in the Transportation Analysis. These issues need to be fully resolved before any conclusion can be made regarding the project proceeding forward.

In addition to the issues discussed above, there are two more items that will have an impact on traffic flow that need to be addressed – Garbage Pickup and the Loading Zone.

GARBAGE PICKUP
Another issue that may affect the Transportation Analysis is where the garbage pick-up is located. In the current plan the garbage area is located on the north side of the property approximately 75 feet from the street curb. As the easement on that side of the property is only 6 feet it is extremely unlikely that a garbage truck will be able to access that space. Therefore, the garbage bins will have to be rolled out onto the street for a pick-up to be made. This will affect how street parking will be laid out as enough room will have to be provided for the garbage truck to line up and pick up the bins. In effect this would be a designated loading zone on the street which I believe does not conform with the Urban Village and Flex Lane plans, as well as bike lanes. It also potentially impacts the flow of traffic in the area, as the garbage truck may temporarily block traffic flow.

Besides having to move the garbage bins to the street for pickup, the current plan does not provide sufficient space to store 2 standard 6 foot wide bins. 2 bins will be required, one for garbage and one for recycling to meet current standards. This deficiency needs to be addressed.

DELIVERY AND LOADING ZONE
Hotels in general have frequent deliveries. In the current planning documents the delivery and loading zone is placed next to the entrance to the parking garage and perpendicular to the street. This means as trucks arrive, they will be stopping in the flex lane and backing up across the sidewalk into the off-street delivery space provided. This has the potential for traffic disruptions, especially if a door has to be raised to allow them to enter. (Having a door to protect that space would be part of the security plan which has not yet been made available). As a curbside loading space was indicated in the plans that were used by Hexagon when they prepared the Transportation Analysis, this potential blockage of the flex lane may have an impact on their calculations and should be reviewed with them prior to any conclusion being made to move forward.

I appreciate the opportunity to share this feedback and look forward to your response. Please feel free to send the response to my email account, [email protected].

Best regards,
Jeffrey Williams
Appendix A - Analysis of Employees Required:

Housekeeping staff – Prior to the Covid epidemic the general guideline for the number of rooms assigned to each housekeeper per shift is 16. (This number is easily found on several internet sites) The basis for this number is derived from the following factors. A room that needs full cleaning, known as a “checkout” requires 30 minutes to fully service. A room that requires moderate cleaning known as a “stayover” requires 15 minutes to service. One also has to allow a housekeeper time to prepare their cart, clean the hallways and to take two required 15-minute breaks. With the hotel having 119 rooms this means the project will need the equivalent of 7.4 housekeepers just to service the rooms.

Additionally, there are other areas of the hotel that will need housekeeping services (i.e., cleaning and trash removal):
• The front lobby area and the coffee bar/bar area
• The lobby bathrooms
• The fitness room with its two lockers and bathroom space • The jacuzzi
• The restaurant area during the non-breakfast service hours • The outdoor seating areas in the back of the hotel and in the jacuzzi area • The elevators, stairwells and ice machine/vending areas on each floor • The employee break room, including its bathroom
• The employee locker area
• The trash area
• The sidewalk in front and valet parking area
This would require at least 1 additional person per shift to handle the above listed duties.

Additionally, there is the need for 1 person who shuttles the dirty laundry and trash bags from the housekeeping stations to the first-floor laundry and trash area. This person would also be stocking the housekeeping closets with clean sheets, towels, room amenities (soap, shampoo, etc.) There is also a need for at least 1 person who handles the laundry room duties.

Finally, with the number of people on the housekeeping team someone will be needed in a supervisory position to manage the team and ensure quality control. This will necessitate at least 1 additional person.

Again, these are pre Covid published guidelines. With the advent of Covid it would not be unreasonable to expect the number of rooms assigned per housekeeper to drop and the need for housekeeping personnel to increase.

Based on the above analysis it will require at least 11 people on the housekeeping team during the primary shift.

Valet staff – According to the developer’s plan they will be using a double stacking parking system and therefore will be exclusively using valet parking. In the current plan of the 66 proposed parking spaces 28 of them will provided by the upper level of a double stacking parking system. The following analysis presumes it will be a system where the upper-level car can be loaded and unloaded without disturbing the lower-level car. In reviewing video of different car parking systems, it takes on average, after arriving at the parking space, at least 3 minutes to load or unload a car. That includes the time to exit the car and go to the control box, lower the upper parking platform, return to the car and drive on to the platform, exit the car, go back to the control box and raise the car into place. (The same procedure works in reverse to retrieve the car). Taking into account the time required to retrieve the vehicle keys and to walk to or from the vehicle the total time required to park or remove a car from those upper parking spaces would most likely be 4 to 5 minutes per car. Which means that one valet focusing only on the upper-level cars would be able to load/unload 12-15 cars per hour. Regarding the 38 cars parked on the lower-level double of stacking parking or in a non-double stacking space, if one presumes the parking/retrieval process takes 2-3 minutes, one valet can handle 20-30 cars per hour. As this property will primarily be a business hotel with only 66 spaces for 119 occupied rooms, it can be presumed that the majority, if not all, of the cars will be leaving during the morning commute window and arriving during the evening commute window. Based upon the above it will require at least 2 valets to handle the demand of parking/retrieval process during key business hours. This will help cars from stacking into the traffic lanes on Winchester and also blocking the driveways of the neighboring business. Hexagon also arrived at the same conclusion in their Transportation Analysis document.

Shuttle staff – per the TDM document the proposed project will offer free shuttle service, this will require 1 person to drive the shuttle per the key shifts. It also will reduce the number of parking spaces available by 1 as the shuttle will need to be parked on-site. I presume that the space for the shuttle is space 66 as marked on sheet A.06 entitled Proposed Basement Floor Plan.

Restaurant staff –From the meetings with the developer my understanding is the restaurant space will be used to offer morning self-service breakfast. Presuming the offering will be the usual buffet style fare found at a primarily business hotel, eggs, bacon, sausage, breads, juice, yogurt, fruit, cereal, etc., it most likely will require 2 people to handle that service. One person in the kitchen to prepare the food and maintain the kitchen and one to keep the buffet area filled and to keep the food area and seating area clean.

Front desk – During the morning and evening peak hours it will take at least 2 people to man the front desk and service the guests during check-in/check-out, as well as handle the normal questions and guest requests.

Administration – These are the additional positions that will be required to run the hotel: 1 Manager and 1 Accountant.

Comment Letter D
From: Shehana <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 5:49 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) To Whom it may concern,
For 6 Months of the year, the 6-story building will block Sunlight to the surrounding Neighborhood, especially 1204 S. Winchester blvd, and other single-family homes on Red Oaks Drive.

Who is going to compensate for the increased electric bills? The City and the Hotel should be held liable and made to pay on an ongoing basis for approving the project with is deviating from the Winchester Urban plan.

Privacy of the single-family homes will be affected by hotel guests/ staff peering into the neighborhood backyards, windows, pools etc. How does the city plan to protect the privacy of the single family residences?
Fire Hazard
The Santana Row fire, years ago had embers from it cause fires over a mile away. If there's a fire at this proposed site it would have a tremendously negative effect on the property to the north, properties to the east and the nursing facility to the south. Would there be sufficient time to evacuate the young and especially the elderly from the nursing care facility in time to avoid a catastrophe?
Traffic impact - Student Safety
The traffic report and TDM do not talk about the impact this proposed project would have on students from Castlemont Elementary and Monroe Middle School. There are countless students that walk past this site to and from school morning and afternoon. How does the city plan to make this area safe for the students that have to pass by this proposed site daily?

Page 165 ends

south roadway that runs from Los Gatos to Lincoln Street in Santa Clara. I would like to point out that this is not the case, as it is now. Does the city have a date by which this would be the make-up of Winchester Blvd? Up until such a point in time loading/unloading and passenger pick-up and drop off would have tremendously negative impact on traffic on northbound Winchester Blvd. How does the city plan to address this? [External Email]
Garbage Storage and Pick Up
According to the plan the garbage is located on the north side of the property right by the single family home. The easement on the property on the north side is only 6 feet, which makes it impossible for a garbage truck to get through and pick up garbage. Which means the garbage bins will have to be pulled to the front of the proposed hotel and garbage trucks will impact traffic on Winchester Blvd. Also, what time will the garbage being collected? What is the impact on the single family home on the north side in terms of noise and also rodents and other pests? Appendix C - Health Risk Assessment, Page 17
Dust and Exhaust Control Measures:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three times a day and at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

The Bay area is under extreme drought conditions- how does the city justify watering this large construction site 3 times a day when residents are being asked not to water their lawns or wash cars?
Does the city plan to compensate the neighbors for health issues that will arise from this project being constructed on this site? Are the residents in the single family home to the north of the proposed project expected to live in their home while this is going on for 15 months? Will it be safe for the residents to even walk out to their back or front yards? I look forward to your response to my concerns
Sincerely
Shehana Marikar
Comment Letter E
From: Dan and Amy Boyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 1:17 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>
Subject: Winchester Boulevard Hotel

As a resident of the Hamann Park community, I would like to share that my family and I would prefer that the hotel proposed for Winchester not be built. This is due to many reasons. It will intrude upon the privacy of the residents in the court directly behind it. Any overflow parking will be filtered to surrounding residential streets, decreasing parking for residents. The six story building will hinder the view of the mountains, etc for the houses behind the hotel for numerous streets, thereby affecting the quality of their experience in their home and potentially lowering the value of the property. Please do what you can to stop the building of this hotel.

Kind regards,
Amy Boyle
Hamann Park Resident
[External Email]
Comment Letter F
From: Aishah Salihue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 7:29 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

Hello,
I am a resident of 1204 South Winchester Blvd where I have lived for the past 24 years. Given the proximity of the proposed project to my home as well as its impact on my neighborhood and community, I am expressing my concerns which are outlined below. 1) The proposed hotel is said to include 119 guest rooms which is going to be maintained by 10 employees. The plan supposes that this parking space and number of employees will be sufficient to maintain a hotel of respectable quality which is not possible given that the hotel employee count needs to include housekeepers (the World Tourist Organization states that at least 8 staffers are needed per 10 rooms at minimum for a 3 star rated hotel), kitchen staff, valet, security personnel, finance manager, manager on site, shuttle drivers, and other essential staff.

This clearly shows that the 10 employee estimate is grossly under what is needed for this proposed hotel to function as stated in the plan.
2) The proposed hotel is going to account for parking by building an underground parking garage with 69 parking spaces for a hotel with 119 rooms, 50 less spaces than the number of rooms.

This is assuming that each room will have an occupancy of only 1 person at a time? In addition, this parking allotment does not take into account employee parking which as I stated above is a substantial staff needed to maintain a quality hotel. This also does not take into account space for parking the hotel shuttle vehicles, and space for deliveries, loading and valet services.

Winchester Blvd is a very busy street (the daily average of vehicles on Winchester Blvd exceeds 10,000 as stated in Appendix C: Health Risk Assessment) This will be apparent once again with the end of the Covid-19 restrictions and complete reopening of businesses, schools, retail, entertainment and dining establishments. It is not safe for vehicles to block traffic on Winchester Blvd given it has only 2 lanes per direction at this location with so many vehicles going through each day. There is no space for parking on Winchester Blvd itself and parking on neighboring streets such as Fireside Drive, Redoaks Drive, and Castlemont Avenue will overwhelm the neighborhood and cause traffic congestion around Castlemont Elementary. It is dangerous to overwhelm such a busy street that already has high volumes of vehicle traffic with parking overflow from hotel employees, guests, visitors, delivery personnel and others who will frequent the proposed hotel. It will impede the travel of emergency responders for whom Winchester Blvd is a standard driving route and slow police response times as well. 3) Appendix C also outlines other health risks such as the air pollutants that will arise during construction. As someone who lives just north of the proposed project, any and all pollutants will [External Email]
affect the daily life of myself, my family and neighbors. The proposed construction will expose all in the surrounding area to carcinogens and other air pollutants. This can be mitigated by an extensive list of mitigation efforts which include watering the construction site. California is in the deep state of a very dangerous drought and water restrictions are being talked about for residents. How can this use of water be justified? Water cannot be utilized to push forth a project that would negatively impact our air quality. In addition, during construction, will it be safe for neighbors to be outside during the construction of this proposed hotel? The construction is stated to take 15 months; will neighborhoods need to continue to wear masks, close windows and avoid being outside their own home due to the air pollutants? As a resident, these are grave concerns that must be addressed and considered. It goes against San Jose’s commitment to becoming a greener city.
4) The garbage bins for this proposed hotel are slated to be on the north side of the property which borders my home. This raises a number of concerns. One is that garbage collection when not maintained increases risk of pest infestation such as rodents and bugs. This is not safe for the residents such as myself. Additionally, at what time of day will garbage services for this hotel take place? It will be a constant source of noise disruption at odd times of the day such as late at night or early morning. This area is still primarily residential which makes this unsafe, unsanitary and disruptive.
5) This proposed hotel is six stories tall. The safety of the neighborhood requires a detailed look at fire safety. The Santana Row Fire is a primary example of why fire safety must be taken seriously as embers traveled very far and caused the fire to spread rapidly which for a taller building must be considered even more seriously in the midst of a residential neighborhood. The proximity of the hotel to many homes, the senior living facility and other establishments means that fire danger is grave, especially during times of great drought. The cost of property, greenery and human life that is put at risk by attempting such a large establishment in the lot of this size is great and the potential damage would be hazardous. Safety must be a top priority. In a busy street like Winchester, safety precautions must be taken with the utmost consideration to maintain the safety of all in the vicinity.
6) As a teacher in the San Jose Unified School District, the safety of students will always be one of my primary concerns in any given situation. The proposed hotel with its limited parking, large proposed guest and visitor areas, and need for loading and deliveries, will reduce the safety of Winchester Blvd for students at Castlemont Elementary and Monroe Middle walking to and from school. A large number of students can be seen walking to school each day and having large vehicles and bottleneck traffic due to the hotel will cause students to be at risk of being harmed.

Vehicles on Winchester Blvd travel at a high speed and this combined with vehicles backing in and out of the hotel reduces the safety of the students walking to their local schools. Students and families must be prioritized in this situation. I attended Campbell Union School District schools and it was also my first place of employment so I have walked to these schools during the day for years. It is very important that we maintain the community centered, safety oriented streets to keep students able to attend school safely.
7) Privacy is another major concern. The proposed six story hotel building will overlook all neighboring homes, eliminating the privacy of all residents including my family. It is not appropriate for residents to have to contend with strangers having full view into their properties.

It is a residential neighborhood and stuffing a hotel into this area by converting what is right now still residential property is not in the community’s best interest.

Regards,
Aishah Salihue
Comment Letter G
From: Mike Drabkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 10:00 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project -- COMMENTS

Hello, Maira.

My wife and I live on Redoaks Drive, with the front of our house looking directly at the site of the proposed Winchester hotel. Please accept this submission as our comments regarding this project.

Respectfully,
Mike & Galina Drabkin
1234 Redoaks Dr, San Jose, CA 95128
[External Email]
[External Email]
From: Mike Drabkin
To: Blanco, Maira
Subject: 1212-1224 S Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project -- COMMENTS Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:55:45 PM
Hello, Maira.

My wife and I live on Redoaks Drive, with the front of our house looking directly at the site of the proposed Winchester hotel. Please accept this submission as our comments regarding this project.

Respectfully,
Mike & Galina Drabkin
1234 Redoaks Dr, San Jose, CA 95128
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) None of the documents available for this project provide a satisfactory explanation exactly how the "10 employees per shift" staffing allocation was arrived at. We would hope that if built, this hotel would be at least a 3-star establishment. Online sources about hotel management indicate substantially different staffing requirements for a hotel of this classification. 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.” (119 rooms x 8 employees per 10 rooms = 95 employees)
https://www.city-of-hotels.com/165/hotel-staffen.html#:~:text=The%20amount%20of%20the%20staff,5%20star%20hotel%20%E2%80%93%2020%20person. (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.

Chapter One: The Traditional Hotel Industry, p15.

Furthermore, by our conservative estimates and supported by the project documentation, here is a conservative list of employees required during day shift:
2x valet (the minimum requirement from Appendix H - Transportation Analysis, p.59) 1x TDM coordinator (per the TDM Plan)
1x Front desk attendant
1x General Manager
1x Maintenance person
3x Housekeeping staff
1x Laundry
1x Accounting
1x Bar
1x Coffee station
1x Kitchen area (at a minimum)
1x Shuttle driver
1x Security (Ref.: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol16/iss1/? utm_source=digitalcommons.fiu.edu%2Fhospitalityreview%2Fvol16%2Fiss1%2F9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages) 5x Restaurant staff
That's 21 total per shift, which would provide a minimum level of services and security for a hotel of this class and with the set of features that is described in the documents File Numbers: SP20-016, C19-031.

That number, of course, affects the parking reduction percentage calculation, making it greater than the allowed 50%: 119 rooms + 21 staff = 140 required parking spaces, which means the hotel would need to provide at least 70 parking spaces with implementation of a TDM plan.
2) Page 165 of 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (Initial Study) describes Winchester Boulevard as "a divided six-lane north-south roadway that runs from Los Gatos to Lincoln Street in Santa Clara. We would like to point out that this is not the case currently, specifically in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. This might be part of the improvements, suggested on p. 176 of the same document, along with protected bike lanes. We would like to understand whether there's a planned date for these improvements to be implemented, as well as for the City to acknowledge that in its current state, any loading/unloading, or passenger pickup and drop off, would severely impact Winchester Boulevard north-bound traffic. 3) The recommended measures, listed in the TDM Plan, page 18, include Guest Shuttle services and On-site Car Share services, such as ZIP cars. Both of these services would require additional parking spaces. The project plan does not have dedicated spots for these. ----------- end comments -----------------------
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Comment Letter H
From: Marlene J Schwilk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:42 AM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Atienza, Manuel <[email protected]>; Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Subject: proposed 1212-1224 Winchester Hotel

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]
Comment Letter I
From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:36 AM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Atienza, Manuel <[email protected]>; Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

Dear Maira,
Here are our formal comments regarding 1212-1224
Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) Sincerely,
Tom & Gail Morman
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

1. WE OBJECT TO THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS SINCE THE REPORTS WERE NOT MADE PUBLIC UNTIL MAY 26, 2021, WHEN 2 HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN 2019; 4 COMPLETED IN 2020; 2 COMPLETED IN JAN & FEB OF THIS YEAR. THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THIS IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD, WAS THEN GIVEN ONLY 20 DAYS TO MAKE FORMAL COMMENTS ON OVER 1100 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS.

2. No one can understand how dropping the height of the hotel by 5 inches and thereby receiving a 50% reduction in the rear setback to only 20 feet mitigates the need for sufficient “breathing room” in terms of air and sunlight access, privacy and noise, as called for in the Winchester Urban Village Plan (5.3-3.2)

3. Mandated Project Revisions: The Director of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement finds the Hotel Project “would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project”.
“The applicant has made or agrees to make project revisions that will clearly mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less than significant level.” THE REVISIONS ARE NOT KNOWN

TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER PLANNING DEPT ACTIONS OR APPROVALS.

4. Number of Hotel Employees Hexagon Transportation Analysis (p 58) states that the project would have 119 rooms and a maximum of 10 employees on-site, thereby needing 129 parking spaces. The requested Parking Reduction “of 67 parking spaces”, now reduced to 66 parking [External Email]
spaces, is based on an incomplete accounting of the number of employees. The Planning Dept called for the applicant to provide a detailed accounting of the number of employees for all uses and not just the hotel, (Planning Dept Review letter dated 10/9/19), which was either never done or never made public. One only needs to look at the services being offered, as well as onlline information on the number of employees needed for a mid-range hotel, to see that 10 employees is understated. The owner’s engineer admitted at the public hearing that this was an “average”. That is not the same as a maximum of 10 employees on-site, WHICH IS THE REQUIRED STANDARD FOR THE ANALYSIS. The project is clearly underparked.

5. Drop Off at the front entrance – the drop off zone on the street in front of the entrance for check-ins violates Urban Village Goal UD-14 “Parking and service areas should not be visible from the public realm.”
Hexagon report (p 58) The hotel “site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate at least two vehicles”. Where has this been done?

6. Parking Space Dimensions - Hexagon report (p 58) “The proposed parking space dimensions…do not meet City standards” and should be adjusted by City staff prior to further actions on this proposal. Has this been done and made public?

7. Fire Plan – On August 19, 2002, the Santana Row fire that caused more than $100 million in damage, with embers igniting roofs half a mile away off Moorpark. The Winchester Hotel Plan (C5.0) shows Aerial Access rather than Fire Apparatus Access Roads, which other complexes along Winchester have had up to now. “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 of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems, p14. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3256.pdf In a memorandum dated 10/11/19 from Fire Department Associate Engineer Gordana Sabatelli regarding an Initial Response to Development Application of the Winchester Hotel, she cited eight comments in Section 1 which the applicant was to respond to in writing. “These comments to be addressed prior to Planning Approval” including: “Show on the plans that all exterior walls of the first story of the building are within 150 feet from the access road as measured along the path of travel (CFC Section 503.1.1) Was this done? We are not aware of this being made public. No information was made public as to how all exterior walls of the first story are within 150 ft of the access road (Winchester Blvd). It also called for a Fire Flow test from the approved fire hydrants be submitted to SJFD for approval. No information made public on this. It suggested a Variance could be sought, but must be approved prior to Planning Approval. The Fire Dept should review the plan for compliance with Fire Code prior to Planning Approval. Fire Dept Memorandum is attached.

Has the Fire Dept considered all of the uses, changes in the rear setback, e.g. the outdoor seating area, the reduction of the setback to 20 feet where PG&E high voltage wires run along the fence line, the obviously inevitable back up of cars in front? The scale of the building and the rear area uses also may affect the fire hazard risk to the residential properties and could affect the insurability or related costs.

8. FAR calculation failed to calculate the access/rights of way for Fire Hose Lines. These should have been subtracted from the net lot size, which would alter the size of what could be built. The FAR calculation needs to be corrected and made public.

9. Maximum roof top height limits. Per Muncipal Code 20.85.040, exceptions to allow elevator shafts and stairwells to exceed the general zoning district height limitation can only go up to 17 feet above the general zoning district height limitation. The height limitation is 65’ + 17’ = 82’. According to the Hotel Roof Plan (A.14), the highest peak is 88’11”, exceeding the height limitation.

10. Parking Garage Drop Off – although the Plan now shows the drop at the garage entry, there is only room for one car at a time. When there is more than one car, they will be waiting on the sidewalk, blocking pedestrian traffic. If there is a longer line, cars will need to wait on the street, backing into the area in front of A Grace Subacute Care. Furthermore, the Hexagon Transportation Analysis (p 58) states: “Appropriate visible and/or audible warning signs should be provided at the garage entrance to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage.” This contradicts Policy 3-20: “New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network.”

11. Delivery and Loading Zone: The Hotel Plan now has an on-site Loading Zone. Because of the inadequate space in the garage, vehicles must back out across the sidewalk in order to exit. Again, this contradicts Policy 3-20 and could be hazardous for strolling pedestrians. ”. However, the garbage bins are stored in an area along the north side of the structure. They will obviously be moved out across the sidewalk to the street. This again violates Urban Village Goal UD-14 “Parking and service areas should not be visible from the public realm.”

12. Rear yard bench/seating structure Hotel Plan shows rear yard bench/seating structure is now next to the rear fence, located in the setback area. Previously planned next to the hotel, it was most likely moved due to the Fire Hose Line right of way. Doesn't a permanent bench/seating area violate the 20’ setback?

13. Air Quality – Impact AQ-1 : “Project construction activities associated with the project indicate that the maximum cancer risk from project construction is 33.1 cases per one million, which exceeds BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.” (Mitigated Negative Declaration, p2 of 6). Cancer risk is over 3 times the threshold. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant shall submit a construction operation plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement demonstrating how their equipment would achieve at least a 70% reduction in harmful emissions. Assuring that health concerns of this magnitude are adequately addressed with an effective construction operation plan should be made public prior to any further Planning Dept actions or approvals.

14. Noise and Vibration Minimization Measures – We have heard of other properties near one of the building sites close to Santana Row suffering cracked walls due to the construction. The Developer offered to photograph the nearby properties prior to starting construction. In addition to mitigation measures for noise, what measures will be taken for any damage in walls or structural components caused by this construction? We believe this should be addressed prior to Planning approval.

15. Please clarify the decision making process and timelines, and identify the decision makers at each stage of the approval process. Specifics on the procedure for making an appeal is also critical to have very soon.

16. We look forward to your timely response since the initial neighborhood group is receiving calls from more area residents and we need your response in order to effectively communicate with these additional concerned residents.

Sincerely,
Tom & Gail Morman
1242 Redoaks Dr
San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 666-0581
[email protected]
Formal Comments for 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

1. WE OBJECT to THE lack of TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCESS since THE REPORTS WERE NOT MADE PUBLIC UNTIL MAY 26, 2021, WHEN 2 HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN 2019; 4 COMPLETED IN 2020; 2 COMPLETED IN JAN & FEB OF THIS YEAR. THE PUBLIC, including this impacted neighborhood, WAS THEN GIVEN only 20 DAYS TO MAKE FORMAL COMMENTS ON OVER 1100 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS after requesting these documents multiple times previously.

2. No one can understand how dropping the height of the hotel by 5 inches and thereby receiving a 50% reduction in the rear setback( to only 20 feet) mitigates the need for sufficient “breathing room” in terms of air and sunlight access, privacy and noise, as called for in the Winchester Urban Village Plan (5.3-3.2)

4. Number of Hotel Employees Hexagon Transportation Analysis (p 58) states that project would have 119 rooms and a maximum of 10 employees on-site, thereby needing 129 parking spaces. The requested Parking Reduction “of 67 parking spaces”, now reduced to 66 parking spaces, is based on an incomplete accounting of the number of employees. The Planning Dept called for the applicant to provide a detailed accounting of the number of employees for all uses and not just the hotel, (Planning Dept Review letter dated 10/9/19), which was either never done or never made public. One only needs to look at the services being offered, as well as on-line information on the number of employees needed for a mid-range hotel, to see that 10 employees is understated. The owner’s engineer admitted at the public hearing that this was an “average”. That is not the same as a maximum of 10 employees on-site, WHICH IS THE REQUIRED STANDARD FOR THE ANALYSIS. The project is clearly underparked.

5. Drop Off at the front entrance – the drop off zone on the street in front of the entrance for check-ins violates Urban Village Goal UD-14 “Parking and service areas should not be visible from the public realm.” Hexagon report (p 58) The hotel “site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate at least two vehicles”. Where has this been done?

6. Parking Space Dimensions - Hexagon report (p 58) “The proposed parking space dimensions…do not meet City standards and should be adjusted by City staff prior to further actions on this proposal..” Has this been done and made public?

7. Fire Plan – On August 19, 2002, the Santa Row fire that caused more than $100 million in damage, with embers igniting roofs half a mile away off Moorpark. The Wichester Hotel Plan (C5.0) shows Aerial Access rather than Fire Apparatus Access Roads, which other complexes along Winchester have had up to now. “The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s permiter 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 of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems, p14. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3256.pdf Comment Letter J
In a memorandum dated 10/11/19 from Fire Department Associate Engineer Gordana Sabatelli regarding an Initial Response to Development Application of the Winchester Hotel, she cited eight comments in Section 1 which the applicant was to respond to in writing. “These comments to be addressed prior to Planning Approval” including: “Show on the plans that all exterior walls of the first story of the building are within 150 feet from the access road as measured along the path of travel (CFC Section 503.1.1) Was this done? I am not aware of this being made public. No information was made public as to how all exterior walls of the first story are within 150 ft of the access road (Winchester Blvd). It also called for a Fire Flow test from the approved fire hydrants be submitted to SJFD for approval. No information made public on this. It suggested a Variance could be sought, but must be approved prior to Planning Approval. The Fire Dept should review the plan for compliance with Fire Code prior to Planning Approval. Fire Dept Memorandum is attached.

Has the Fire Dept. considered all of the use changes in the rear setback e.g the outdoor seating area, the reduction of the setback to 20 feet, the backup of cars? The scale of the building and the rear area uses also may affect the fire hazard risk to the residential properties and could affect the insurability or related costs.

11. Delivery and Loading Zone: There Plan now has an on-site Loading Zone. Because of the inadequate space in the garage, vehicles must back out across the sidewalk in order to exit. Again, this contradicts Policy 3-20 and could be hazardous for strolling pedestrians. However, the garbage bins are stored in an area along the north side of the structure. They will obviously be moved out across the sidewalk to the street. This again violates Urban Village Goal UD-14 “Parking and service areas should not be visible from the public realm.”

12. Rear yard bench/seating structure Hotel Plan shows rear yard bench/seating structure is now next to the rear fence, located in the setback area. Previously planned next to the hotel, it was most likely moved due to the Fire Hose Line right of way. It appears the Plan want to build a permanent bench which would seem to violate the 20’ setback.

Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits (whichever occurs earliest), the project applicant shall submit a construction operation plan to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement demonstrating how their equipment would achieve at least a 70% reduction in harmful emissions. This needs to be made public for the community to review prior to Planning approval.

14. Noise and Vibration Minimization Measures – We have heard of other properties near one of the building sites close to Santana Row suffering cracked walls due to the construction. The Developer offered to photograph the nearby properties prior to starting construction. Will our homes be photographed by the developer prior to construction? In addition to mitigation measures for noise, what measures will be taken for any damage in walls or structural components caused by this construction? We believe this should be addressed prior to Planning approval.

15. Traffic Study – This was completed 3/2020 during the COVID pandemic when “safe at home” measures were in place and traffic was at a minimum. This study needs to be updated to accurately reflect the current and future traffic flow to assess how a 6-story hotel would impact the traffic congestion.

16. Reverse Condemnation – How will we be compensated for not only a decrease in property value but also quality of life (secondary to hotel’s negative impact on sunlight, view, traffic congestion, pollution, anxiety regarding safety)?

17. Please clarify the decision-making process and timelines, and identify the decision makers at each stage of the approval process. Specifics on the procedure for making an appeal is also critical to have very soon.

We look forward to your timely response since the intial neighborhood group is receiving calls from more area residents and we need your response in order to effectively communicate with these additional concerned residents.

Formal Comments for 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

5. Drop Off at the front entrance – the drop off zone on the street in front of the entrance for check-ins violates Urban Village Goal UD-14 “Parking and service areas should not be visible from the public realm.” Hexagon report (p 58) The hotel “site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate at least two vehicles”. Where has this been done?

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 of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems, p14. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3256.pdf Comment Letter K
In a memorandum dated 10/11/19 from Fire Department Associate Engineer Gordana Sabatelli regarding an Initial Response to Development Application of the Winchester Hotel, she cited eight comments in Section 1 which the applicant was to respond to in writing. “These comments to be addressed prior to Planning Approval” including: “Show on the plans that all exterior walls of the first story of the building are within 150 feet from the access road as measured along the path of travel (CFC Section 503.1.1) Was this done? I am not aware of this being made public. No information was made public as to how all exterior walls of the first story are within 150 ft of the access road (Winchester Blvd). It also called for a Fire Flow test from the approved fire hydrants be submitted to SJFD for approval. No information made public on this. It suggested a Variance could be sought, but must be approved prior to Planning Approval. The Fire Dept should review the plan for compliance with Fire Code prior to Planning Approval. Fire Dept Memorandum is attached.

12. Rear yard bench/seating structure Hotel Plan shows rear yard bench/seating structure is now next to the rear fence, located in the setback area. Previously planned next to the hotel, it was most likely moved due to the Fire Hose Line right of way. It appears the Plan want to build a permanent bench which would seem to violate the 20’ setback.

14. Noise and Vibration Minimization Measures – We have heard of other properties near one of the building sites close to Santana Row suffering cracked walls due to the construction. The Developer offered to photograph the nearby properties prior to starting construction. Will our homes be photographed by the developer prior to construction? In addition to mitigation measures for noise, what measures will be taken for any damage in walls or structural components caused by this construction? We believe this should be addressed prior to Planning approval.

16. Shadow Study – This only was done until the late afternoon/early evening. This sound be extended until sundown to fully assess impact of the 6-story hotel on the neighbors’ sunlight.

17. Reverse Condemnation – How will we be compensated for not only a decrease in property value but also quality of life (secondary to hotel’s negative impact on sunlight, breeze, view, traffic congestion, pollution, anxiety regarding safety)?

18. Please clarify the decision-making process and timelines, and identify the decision makers at each stage of the approval process. Specifics on the procedure for making an appeal is also critical to have very soon.

Comment Letter L
From: Ali S <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:16 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

Hi,
After reading the reports and documents concerning the potential hotel project, I noticed a few things and had some questions/concerns on the initial study.

For example in the initial study for the potential hotel project, specifically the sections that identify the impact on the resources that the potential hotel will have, the study states the following frequently, “The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.” For hydrology and water quality, the construction is supposed be for 15 months and requires frequent use of water throughout the day (for 15 months) to prevent air contamination and mitigate the amount greenhouse gas emissions, and we are in the midst of a historic drought, and people are at risk of having their water supply cut off. For transportation and traffic, there are only two lanes on Winchester BLVD (northbound) which can get congested easily, especially when the delivery vehicles arrive at the hotel. This will cause gridlock in traffic that would affect Castlemont students and nearby residents. The traffic report was released at the time of the Shelter-In-Place order when it was implemented last year in March, so the context of the traffic report doesn’t support the initial study when it comes to the impact on traffic. Overall, I am not sure how these conclusions from the initial study, regarding the impact on the resources, were made as mentioned above. Who is conducting these studies and how and when they are being conducted must be taken into consideration.

Sincerely
Ali Salihue
[External Email]
Comment Letter M
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: Winchester Hotel Project
Hello Maira —
This email is a (desperate) last ditch effort to implore you not to degrade our neighborhood with a 6 story, 120 room hotel.

It’s not necessary for me to rehash the specifications (the holes in which are many), nor will I raise the same issues that have been repeatedly raised regarding building usage, traffic congestion, parking, safety, number of employees, etc. apparently, the information we have is as much and as thorough as we can expect at this point.

I will, however, reiterate the fact that this project, on so many levels, is a blight on our neighborhood. It contributes nothing aesthetically or economically. This proposed hotel contributes nothing to the place we call home.

I respectfully request that you reconsider this project. My feeling is that none of you would want (or accept) a hotel in your backyards, so please extend to us the courtesy of not force fitting this monstrosity in our neighborhood.

Obviously, we’re all rather passionate about keeping our neighborhood residential. Please don’t allow one person’s quest to make a few dollars jeopardize the effort we’ve put in to ensure the comfort and well being of our neighborhood.

Thanks for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,
Hal Stone
1233 Castlemont Ave.

Comment Letter N
From: Mabel Cheng <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

The parking described in the plan does not appear to meet the needs of the staff and guests of the hotel, and will thusly impact the surrounding neighborhood. With upwards of a dozen employees and full hotel occupancy (119 guests), the 65 planned parking spaces do not even meet half of the need. This is going to cause street parking issues for nearby residents and businesses. Compliance with City Parking Code allows for reduction in required auto parking when bicycle parking is provided. While this may make sense with residents or patrons/employees of some businesses, this does not make sense for a hotel. It would be unrealistic to expect the majority of hotel guests to conduct their local business and entertainment via walking, cycling, and public transit. The parking plan is far from realistic.

The five adjacent homes located within the shadow of the hotel will have a substantial reduction in solar electricity generation capability, especially in the winter months when sun-hours are in short supply. Some of these homes have existing solar installations, and their electrical and financial viability will be diminished. The hotel's solar access blockade runs counter to the drive behind California's residential solar mandate. Further, the negative impact on solar generation capability of nearby properties does not support the following measures in the Appendix J Greenhouse Gas Reduction Checklist:
- MS-2.2: Encourage maximized use of on-site generation of renewable energy for all new and existing buildings.
- MS-16.2: Promote neighborhood-based distributed clean/renewable energy generation to improve local energy security and to reduce the amount of energy wasted in transmitting electricity over long distances.

The developer's response to MS-16.2 states that MS-16.2 is not applicable because the "project is a hotel and does not generate or distribute energy". This is incorrect. The project has solar panels and therefore generates energy. The hotel is electrically grid-tied (primarily uses energy from PG&E), and therefore is capable of distributing energy in situations where solar generation exceeds demand. Thus MS-16.2 is applicable, and the project has not addressed it, neither on behalf of itself nor its neighbors.

The offsets and easements on the north and south edges of the property are insufficient. What happens when a crane is required to repair the northeast corner of the hotel? I do not believe that this hotel is a good fit for the neighborhood, within the tight boundaries of two former residences.

[External Email]
Mabel Cheng
Comment Letter O
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) There are many justifiable reasons why a proposed hotel project is not in the best interests of the city and neighborhood.

1. Documents not shared/disclosed. The neighborhood concerned residents have been discussing and has multiple meetings with the Vice Mayor office. We have repeatedly express concerns and have asked on multiple occasions for more information especially the TDM, Fire report, site plan with dimensions, etc. However to our dismay, the documents recently shared have dates of 2020 and Jan 2021. This clearly was available but not given until the end of May. May 26, 2021. This is clearly withholding information and placing the neighborhood at a distinct disadvantage.

2. Number of Hotel Employees. The number of employees stated is 10. However for a hotel of 119 rooms this is clearly not correct. A full disclosure needs to show the 10 positions. Currently the number 10 is given without regard to the actual positions such as house keeping, maintenance worker, valet, restaurant cook, waiter, TDM worker, front desk, management, etc. The lack of specific employee task or job description indicates that this is just a ‘number’ and not a real operational value.

3. Number if parking spaces. The TDM indicates a reduction of 48.8%. This is based on the number of required spaces of 129, which is 119 (rooms) + 10 (employees). However since the number of 10 employees has not been justified, this reduction percent, also cannot be justified. As the number of employees is more than 10, then the reduction will be over 50% which is above the Urban Village Plan.

The TDM also specifies that the below 50% needs to be re-evaluated for the life of the project. Compliance with Subsection 20.90.220.A.1.e Thus it is important that this be address at the beginning of the project and not each time to consider some remediation later. The TDM also states

4. Delivery and Loading. Review Letter dated Oct 9, 2019 states the following:

Loading Space:

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.

However the implementation of this loading space for this project is not feasible. The loading space in open in one direction. It is not a through way so a delivery truck will need to either back in or back out into the street. The plan also does not show a 30 feet long clearance.

In addition, for this project a hotel requires many daily deliveries. House keeping supplies, laundry, food service for the restaurant and coffee bar, etc will result in a high demand for the one space.
5 Trash pickup. There is a small area designated for trash on the North side of the building. However there is no room for a garbage truck to access any dumpster. The dumpster will need to be coordinated to be moved onto the street. As the Urban Village Plan indicates there should not be any impediment of traffic flow for cars, bikes, pedestrians. Trash pickup will indeed be disruptive to any traffic flow. This violates Urban Village Goal UD-14 “Parking and service areas should not be visible from the public realm.”
6 Fire Plan The Fire plan is extremely important as this affects the entire neighborhood.

The building has only one access for a fire truck that is from Winchester Blvd. The side of the bldg. to the property fence is only 6 feet maximum therefore there is no access for a fire truck to either the South, East or North side of the bldg. It has been outlined in a preliminary report that the bldg. could be supported with a overhead ladder. However this would not seem feasible if a fire is in the back East side of the bldg. and is mid level.

The overhead ladder would not be able to reach this spot. 7 Parking and Valet The underground concept of a stacked parking lifts is not feasible at all. There are many concerns with the amount of time taken to park and retrieve cars.

This greatly impacts the traffic as there is only one staging area in which cars can wait either to be parked or for new guests to unload luggage. This definitely needs to be addressed especially when the number of parking spaces is in question already. 8 Noise and Vibration The neighborhood, especially the those that are adjacent to the project reserve the right for compensation for structure damage due to the construction of the project. As the project requires below ground work, this will mean additional excavation and foundation work to support a six story building. 9 Overall concerns Many of the concerns being brought up by the neighborhood address the day to day operations and how it will negatively impact the traffic and community.

However the since these concerns have not been addressed in the past, the feedback to the community is that the day to day operations are NOT of a concern. The project itself is of more value than common sense concerns.

In conclusion the resultant project will be a BUST. Given the lack of parking, extraordinary time of valet wait, under staffing of hotel, it would indicate that patrons would not wish to stay at a hotel such as proposed. The building will be built, become an eye sore as does not fit in the surrounding neighborhood and be a waste as no one would want to invest in it. Worse we will have a 6-story building that towers over the neighborhood, blocks out our sunlight, and take away our normal view of the sky as we’ll see a 6 story concrete building. This Urban Village overall is to enhance people’s lives but instead it is forcing a 6 story hotel on 2 small parcels that has a very negative impact to our family and to our neighborhood.

We are very concerned that this project to “enhance” our neighborhood instead will create an unsafe environment (due to what we and others have noted: fire safety, privacy, blocking of pedestrians and flow of traffic, noise factor that is 24 hours in a residential neighborhood which then interferes with our sleep, and adding to the traffic for the skilled nursing when they have a 9-1-1 call.

We are very concerned for the welfare of our neighborhood and truly do not see how a hotel will benefit or be needed in this area. Hotel industry is one of the hardest hit from COVID-19. As my husband stated above, if built, it will become an eyesore to our neighborhood.

Brian and Helen Matsumoto
Comment Letter P
From: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:00 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: FW: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) Hi Vice Mayor Jones and Maira,
I just received this email and wanted to let you know. I hope it was also emailed to Maira.

Regards,
Tom
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:37 PM
Subject: FW: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) To: Tom Morman <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Muscha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing my objections for the proposed development of the hotel project at Winchester and Payne. What purpose would a hotel in our residential neighborhood provide? Are there not enough hotels in our general area already to accommodate the number of visitors we have to this area? Putting a hotel in that location, aside from its massive presence and the invasion of privacy for nearby homeowners, would only negatively add to the constant increase of congestion that already exists in the area. The queuing lines for the nearby freeway entrances have already been impacted with the current level of traffic during the morning and afternoon commutes, as well as the constant traffic problems as a result of the local restaurants, shopping centers and other businesses. Placing a hotel in this location would only add to an already existing traffic and noise problem.

I am NOT in support of a hotel in this proposed location and hope that the city does not approve its development.

Regards,
Jennifer Muscha
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A
San Ramon, CA 94583
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
May 27, 2021
Maira Blanco
City of San Jose
200 E Sanata Clara St
San Jose, CA 95113
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Maira Blanco,
Thank you for submitting the 1212-1224 South Winchester Blvd plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.

Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.

Below is additional information for your review:

1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/buildingand-renovation/overview/overview.page.

2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.

3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.

Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.

This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.

Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
Comment Letter Q
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf

1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.

2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.

Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.

Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.

Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).

No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.

4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.

5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.

Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.

6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.

For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.

7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.

If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.

8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.

9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.

10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.

Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4

11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.

12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.

With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.

13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:

1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”

2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.

Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-toconductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.

3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.

4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.

5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.

6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.

Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.

7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.

PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6

8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.

9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.

10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.

11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.

12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.

Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.

Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.

13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.

Comment Letter R
From: John Griswold <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 4:13 PM
To: Blanco, Maira <[email protected]>
Cc: Atienza, Manuel <[email protected]>; Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Tom Morman <[email protected]>
Subject: 1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016)

Re-zoning for this monstrous hotel will diminish adjacent property values. A home buyer deciding between two equivalent homes will pay substantially less for the one that is literally within the shadow of a 6 story eyesore. Adjacent property owners have a right to compensation or relief where their view is lost to rezoning and construction, even where no footprint acreage is taken. The 6 story hotel will have upper level balconies overlooking private residential pools, yards, and bedrooms. These homeowners will no longer enjoy the privacy they purchased and reasonably expect. The adjacent homes were built and occupied with the expectation of 1-2 story residential neighbors. The negative impact of this project on the fair market value of adjacent homes should be determined by a neutral assessor who is neither employed by the hotel nor the pro-business city planners, and injured parties should be justly compensated. As part of assessing the fair market value impact on adjacent homes, planners should render realistic views of the hotel from the backyards, pools, patios, dining rooms and upstairs bedrooms of these adjacent property owners. If the city of San Jose plans to flex its probusiness mindset by discarding extant zoning, they should also plan to offset the negative impact to those harmed. If not, they can expect inverse condemnation legal action.

Tall columnar trees should be included in the landscape plan to mitigate the substantial privacy loss for adjacent homes. These trees should be selected to break up the visual impact of the ominous nonresidential structure, complementing the vegetation already planned for the purpose of decorating the hotel's back patio. These tall trees will inevitably interfere with existing power and communication lines currently mounted on poles along the eastern edge of the property. Therefore, the site plan should include moving these utilities underground to prevent storm-related outages. PG&E will need to upgrade the service capacity anyway, as the electrical needs of the hotel will far outweigh the current capacity established for the two condemned residences. The existing vegetation that currently serves as a privacy shield (for single story residences) will be destroyed. Also, any impact on easements should be reassessed as appropriate.

Thank you for your consideration,
John Griswold, relative of nearby homeowner
[External Email]

TAMIEN NATION

OF THE GREATER SANTA CLARA COUNTY
P.O. Box 8053, San Jose, California 95155
(707) 295-4011 [email protected]
June 11, 2021
City of San Jose
Maira Blanco
Planning Project Manager
Sent Via Email: Maira.Blanco@sanjoseca
RE: Formal Request for Tribal Consultation Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subds. (b), (d) and (e) for 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard, San José, CA Dear Ms. Blanco,
This letter constitutes a formal request for tribal consultation under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 subdivisions (b), (d) and (e)) for the mitigation of potential project impacts to tribal cultural resource for the above referenced project. Tamien Nation requested formal notice and information for all projects within your agency’s geographical jurisdiction and received notification on May 26, 2021, regarding the above referenced project.

Tamien Nation requests consultation on the following topics checked below, which shall be included in consultation if requested (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2, subd. (a):

Alternatives to the project
X Recommended mitigation measures
X Significant effects of the project
Tamien Nation also requests consultation on the following discretionary topics checked below (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2(, subd. (a):
_X
_X
Type of environmental review necessary
Significance of tribal cultural resources, including any regulations, policies or standards used by your agency to determine significance of tribal cultural resources
_X Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources X Project alternatives and/or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that we may recommend, including, but not limited to:

Comment Letter S
(1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria;
(2) Treating the resources with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resources, including but not limited to the following:
a. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; b. Protection the traditional use of the resource; and
c. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
(3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
(4) Protecting the resource.

Additionally, Tamien Nation would like to receive any cultural resources assessments or other assessments that have been completed on all or part of the project’s potential “area of project effect” (APE), including, but not limited to:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
■ A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE;
■ Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response;
■ If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
■ Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the potential APE; and ■ If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
■ Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage Commission. The request form can be found at http://www.nahc.ca.gov/slf_request.html. USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle name, township, range, and section required for the search.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

We would like to remind your agency that CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (b)(3) states that preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites. Section 15126.4, subd. (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines has been interpreted by the California Court of Appeal to mean that “feasible preservation in place must be adopted to mitigate impacts to historical resources of an archaeological nature unless the lead agency determines that another form of mitigation is available and provides superior mitigation of impacts.” Madera Oversight Coalition v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, disapproved on other grounds, Neighbors for Smart Rail v.

Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439.

Tamien Nation expects to begin consultation within 30 days of your receipt of this letter.

Please contact Tamien Nation‘s lead contact person identified in the attached request for notification.

Quirina Geary
Chairwoman
POBox8053
San Jose, CA 95155
(707) 295-4011
Sincerely,
Quirina Geary
Chairwoman
cc: Native American Heritage Commission

ATTACHMENT B

San Jose City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

San Jose City Council
August 23, 2022