Exhibit E - Response to Environmental Determination Appeal — San Jose City Council, August 23, 2022 (part 5 of 6)

Permit Center | 200 East Santa Clara Street, San José CA 95113 | (408) 535-3555 The City of San José Online Permits website is developed by Intergraph Corporation and City of San José. 9/23/2019 CalEPA Regulated Site Portal
https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite/map/results 1/1
About
CalEPA Regulated Site Portal
500 ft
Search By Keyword
12 sites found
Did you mean: 1212 S Winchester Blvd,
San Jose, CA 95128
AT7t California - N41P0
1324 S WINCHESTER BLVD
SAN JOSE CA 95128
RITE AID #5993
1333 S WINCHESTER BLVD
SAN JOSE CA 95128
9/23/2019 EnviroStor Database
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=1212+S+Winchester+Boulevard%2C+San+Jose 1/1 200 m Map data ©2019 Google

ENVIROSTOR
Sites and Facilities
Cleanup Sites
Federal Superfund
State Response
Voluntary Cleanup
School Cleanup
Evaluation
School Investigation
Military Evaluation
Tiered Permit
Corrective Action
STATUS
All Statuses
Permitted Sites
Operating
Post-Closure
Non-Operating
Other Sites
GIS Layers
Tools

TAKE A TOUR SHARE THIS MAP
SITES CURRENTLY VISIBLE ON MAP 1 SITES LISTED EXPORT THIS LIST TO EXCEL

PROJECT NAME STATUS PROJECT TYPE ADDRESS CITY
RIVERSIDE CLEANERS CERTIFIED VOLUNTARY CLEANUP 691 WEST HAMILTON AVE. CAMPBELL 1212 S Winchester Boulevard, San Jose Map Address
9/23/2019 GeoTracker
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=1212+South+Winchester+Boulevard%2C+San+Jose 1/1 50 m Map data ©2019 Google
1212 South Winchester Boulevard, San Jose Map Address
Cleanup Program Sites
Military Cleanup Sites
DTSC Cleanup Sites
Permitted Facilities
Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR) Sites
Permitted USTs - INFO
DTSC Hazardous Waste Sites
Land Disposal Sites - SELECT
NONE
Burn Dump
Compost Facility
Illegal Disposal Site
Other
Pre-Title 27 - CAI
Title 27 - Land Treatment Unit
Title 27 - Mining Unit
Title 27 - Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill
Title 27 - Non-Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill
Title 27 - Surface Impoundment
Title 27 - Waste Pile
Unknown
Irrigated Lands Regulatory
Program Sites
Oil / Gas Sites
Other Oil and Gas Projects
Produced Water Ponds
Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
Well Stimulation Project -
Exclusion
Well Stimulation Project -
Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Well Stimulation Projects -
Property Owner Sampling
Confined Animal Sites
Other Sites
Project Sites
Non-Case Information Sites
Sampling Points - Public
Field Points
AGLand Domestic Wells

SIGNIFIES A CLOSED SITE
Tools
Map Coverages

TAKE A TOUR VIEW ON GAMA

SITES CURRENTLY VISIBLE ON MAP
Request #19-427
 CLOSED
Details
Hello, I would like to request records related to current or historical hazardous materials/wastes usage, storage, or releases, presence of underground and/or aboveground storage tanks (USTs and/or ASTs), permits to operate, notices of violation, or notices to comply, and information regarding any subsurface releases at the properties located at 1212 and 1224 S Winchester Blvd, San Jose, California. Thank you! Received
September 19, 2019 via web
Departments
Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
Requester
Minh Ngo
 [email protected]
 1035 22nd Avenue Suite 9, Oakland, CA 94606
 5106507730
 Essel Environmental Engineering & Consulting
Documents
As of September 23, 2019, 12:38pm
 Success! Your email was conrmed. ×
Request Visibility: Unpublished
Public (pending) 
(none)
Requester
(none)
Sta
Point of Contact
Melissa Belloso
Timeline
Public
Public
Public
Request Closed
Good afternoon, Minh.

Thank you for your recent record request received on 09.19.19 for the following addresses in SAN JOSE:
1212 and 1224 S Winchester Blvd
We have no records for these locations. However, additional electronic documents may be found on the following websites:

Local Oversight Program (LOP)
GEOTracker (GT)
Spill Reports Website – California Oce of Emergency Services (Cal OES):

Please be advised that in some cities, other participating agencies may be responsible for maintaining the type of les you requested. This link may be of assistance in determining who will have the documents you are looking for in the future:

UNIDOCS – Who regulates what in Santa Clara County
September 23, 2019, 12:11pm
Department Assignment
Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
September 19, 2019, 3:56pm
Request Opened
Request received via web
September 19, 2019, 3:56pm
9/24/2019 Essel Technology Services Mail - Your CEPA public records request #19-437 has been closed. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=eb4b4733b7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1645578041244309749&simpl=msg-f%3A16455780412… 1/2 Tyler Barazoto <[email protected]>
Your CEPA public records request #19-437 has been closed. 1 message
CEPA Public Records <[email protected]> Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:18 PM Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected]
-- Attach a non-image file and/or reply ABOVE THIS LINE with a message, and it will be sent to staff on this request. -- CEPA Public Records
Hi there
Record request #19-437 has been closed. The
closure reason supplied was:

Good morning, Tyler.

Thank you for your recent record request received on 09.20.19 for the following addresses in SAN JOSE:
1212 and 1224 S Winchester Blvd
We have no records for these locations. However, additional electronic documents may be found on the following websites:

Local Oversight Program (LOP)
GEOTracker (GT)
Spill Reports Website – California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES):

Please be advised that in some cities, other participating agencies may be responsible for maintaining the type of files you requested. This link may be of assistance in determining who will have the documents you are looking for in the future:

UNIDOCS – Who regulates what in Santa Clara County
9/24/2019 Essel Technology Services Mail - Your CEPA public records request #19-437 has been closed. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=eb4b4733b7&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1645578041244309749&simpl=msg-f%3A16455780412… 2/2 View Request 19-437

POWERED BY NEXTREQUEST
The All in One Records Requests Platform
Questions about your request? Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at CEPA.

Technical support: See our help page
http://cepascc-ca.nextrequest.com/requests/19-437
Parcel Information: Report Generated: 9/19/2019 3:59:34 PM 279-17-021
95128-3906

SAN JOSE, CA
APN:

Site Address: 1212 S WINCHESTER BL
Tax Rate Area: 17168
Estimated Size: 14599 sq. ft. / 0.34 acres
N/A City Zoning:

County of Santa Clara
Parcel Report
DISCLAIMER: The GIS data is provided "AS IS". The COUNTY makes no warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose, regarding the accuracy, completeness, value, quality, validity, merchantability, suitability, and condition, of the GIS data. Users of COUNTY's GIS data are hereby notified that current public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the data and information contained herein. Since the GIS data is dynamic, it will by its nature, be inconsistent with the official COUNTY assessment roll file produced by the Office of the Assessor. Any use of COUNTY's GIS data without consulting current Public Records for verification is done exclusively at the risk of the party making such use County of Santa Clara
Parcel Report
Additional Information
Property Value
AP_LP LP
APN 27917021
NUMBER_OF_SITUS_ADDRESS 1
OBJECTID 30336
ParcelFeatureMapScale 858
SHAPE_Area 2148
SHAPE_Length 189
SITUS_CITY_NAME SAN JOSE
SITUS_HOUSE_NUMBER 1212
SITUS_HOUSE_NUMBER_SUFFIX
SITUS_STATE_CODE CA
SITUS_STREET_DIRECTION S
SITUS_STREET_NAME WINCHESTER
SITUS_STREET_TYPE BL
SITUS_UNIT_NUMBER
SITUS_ZIP_CODE 95128-3906
TAX_RATE_AREA 17168
DISCLAIMER: The GIS data is provided "AS IS". The COUNTY makes no warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose, regarding the accuracy, completeness, value, quality, validity, merchantability, suitability, and condition, of the GIS data. Users of COUNTY's GIS data are hereby notified that current public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the data and information contained herein. Since the GIS data is dynamic, it will by its nature, be inconsistent with the official COUNTY assessment roll file produced by the Office of the Assessor. Any use of COUNTY's GIS data without consulting current Public Records for verification is done exclusively at the risk of the party making such use Parcel Information: Report Generated: 9/19/2019 4:00:16 PM 279-17-020
95128-3906

SAN JOSE, CA
APN:

Site Address: 1224 S WINCHESTER BL
Tax Rate Area: 17168
Estimated Size: 15627 sq. ft. / 0.36 acres
N/A City Zoning:

County of Santa Clara
Parcel Report
DISCLAIMER: The GIS data is provided "AS IS". The COUNTY makes no warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose, regarding the accuracy, completeness, value, quality, validity, merchantability, suitability, and condition, of the GIS data. Users of COUNTY's GIS data are hereby notified that current public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the data and information contained herein. Since the GIS data is dynamic, it will by its nature, be inconsistent with the official COUNTY assessment roll file produced by the Office of the Assessor. Any use of COUNTY's GIS data without consulting current Public Records for verification is done exclusively at the risk of the party making such use County of Santa Clara
Parcel Report
Additional Information
Property Value
AP_LP LP
APN 27917020
NUMBER_OF_SITUS_ADDRESS 1
OBJECTID 390215
ParcelFeatureMapScale 882
SHAPE_Area 2299
SHAPE_Length 194
SITUS_CITY_NAME SAN JOSE
SITUS_HOUSE_NUMBER 1224
SITUS_HOUSE_NUMBER_SUFFIX
SITUS_STATE_CODE CA
SITUS_STREET_DIRECTION S
SITUS_STREET_NAME WINCHESTER
SITUS_STREET_TYPE BL
SITUS_UNIT_NUMBER
SITUS_ZIP_CODE 95128-3906
TAX_RATE_AREA 17168
DISCLAIMER: The GIS data is provided "AS IS". The COUNTY makes no warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness for a particular purpose, regarding the accuracy, completeness, value, quality, validity, merchantability, suitability, and condition, of the GIS data. Users of COUNTY's GIS data are hereby notified that current public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the data and information contained herein. Since the GIS data is dynamic, it will by its nature, be inconsistent with the official COUNTY assessment roll file produced by the Office of the Assessor. Any use of COUNTY's GIS data without consulting current Public Records for verification is done exclusively at the risk of the party making such use

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.

National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü
121°57'18.24"W
37°18'25.93"N
121°56'40.79"W
37°17'57.31"N

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 9/24/2019 at 7:40:45 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.

Jared Blumenfeld
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.

Acting Director
1001 "I" Street
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
Gavin Newsom
Governor
Facility:

Search on:

Street:

Status:

Sort Direction:

Sorted By:

Records Found:

Physical Address
1212 winchester blvd
Active and Inactive
asc
EPA ID
0 Facility Search Results
Selection Criteria:

The Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) takes every precaution to ensure the accuracy of data in the Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS). However, because of the large number of manifests handled, inaccuracies in the submitted data, limitations of the manifest system and the technical limitations of the database, DTSC cannot guarantee that the data accurately reflect what was actually transported or produced.

Report Generation Date: 10/01/2019
Jared Blumenfeld
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.

Acting Director
1001 "I" Street
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
Gavin Newsom
Governor
Facility:

Search on:

Street:

Status:

Sort Direction:

Sorted By:

Records Found:

Physical Address
1224 winchester blvd
Active and Inactive
asc
EPA ID
0 Facility Search Results
Selection Criteria:

Report Generation Date: 10/01/2019
1212 S Winchester Blvd
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
September 24, 2019
0 0.025 0.05 0.1 mi
0 0.04 0.08 0.16 km
1:3,124
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

APPENDIX G

NOISE ASSESSMENT

19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 1
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
1212 & 1224 WINCHESTER BOULEVARD HOTEL
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
WJVA Report No. 19‐041
PREPARED FOR
EMC PLANNING
301 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE, SUITE C
MONTEREY, CA 93940
PREPARED BY
WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923 ∙ 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 2

1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The proposed project would consist of the construction and operation of a six‐story hotel, with up to 119 guest rooms. The first floor would contain the main lobby reception area, guest luggage storage, coffee station and bar area, two office rooms, accounting, management, employees break room, men locker room, women locker room, fire control room, laundry, security, fire pump room, electrical room, and 11 guest rooms. Common outdoor areas for hotel guests are proposed to be located on 2nd floor that contain gym and lockers, jacuzzi, steam room, restaurant area and kitchen. 18 guest rooms would also be located on 2nd floor. Floors 3 through 6 would contain guest rooms that would range from approximately 270 to 770 square feet in size. The project site plan is provided as Figure 1.

The project would also include the demolition of two existing single‐family residential structures, located at 1212 and 1224 S. Winchester Boulevard. The two properties are currently utilized as a mix of residential and commercial/office land uses.

Environmental Noise Assessment
This environmental noise assessment has been prepared to determine if significant noise impacts would be produced by the project and to describe mitigation measures for noise if significant impacts are determined. The environmental noise assessment, prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA), is based upon the project site plan design and construction package prepared by Carpira Design Group Company, project‐related traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. and a project site visit on September 19 and 20, 2019. Revisions to the site plan, project‐related traffic data or other project‐related information available to WJVA at the time the analysis was prepared may require a reevaluation of the findings and/or recommendations of the report.

Appendix A provides definitions of the acoustical terminology used in this report. Unless otherwise stated, all sound levels reported in this analysis are A‐weighted sound pressure levels in decibels (dB). A‐weighting de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A‐weighted sound levels, as they correlate well with public reaction to noise. Appendix B provides typical A‐weighted sound levels for common noise sources.

In terms of human perception, a 5 dB increase or decrease is considered to be a noticeable change in noise levels. Additionally, a 10 dB increase or decrease is perceived by the human ear as half as loud or twice asloud. In terms of perception, generally speaking the human ear cannot perceive an increase (or decrease) in noise levels less than 3 dB.
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 3

2. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The CEQA Guidelines apply the following questions for the assessment ofsignificant noise impacts for a project:
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
a. Noise Level Standards
City of San Jose
The Environmental Leadership Chapter of the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan1 (adopted November 1, 2011) establishes land use compatibility criteria in terms of the Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn/DNL). The Ldn represents the time‐weighted energy average noise level for a 24‐hour day, with a 10 dB penalty added to noise levels occurring during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m.‐7:00 a.m.). The Ldn represents cumulative exposure to noise over an extended period of time and are therefore calculated based upon annual average conditions. The General Plan establishes noise exposure criteria for specific land use types. TheNoise level criteria established in the General Plan are provided below.

Goal EC‐1 – Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility Minimize the impact of noise on people through noise reduction and suppression techniques, and through appropriate land use policies.

Policies – Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility EC‐1.1 Locate new development in areas where noise levels are appropriate for the proposed uses.

Consider federal, state and City noise standards and guidelines as a part of new development review. Applicable standards and guidelines for land uses in San José include:
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 4
Interior Noise Levels
 The City’s standard for interior noise levels in residences, hotels, motels, residential care facilities, and hospitalsis 45 dBA DNL. Include appropriate site and building design, building construction and noise attenuation techniques in new development to meet this standard.

For sites with exterior noise levels of 60 dBA DNL or more, an acoustical analysis following protocols in the City‐adopted California Building Code is required to demonstrate that development projects can meet this standard. The acoustical analysis shall base required noise attenuation techniques on expected Envision General Plan traffic volumes to ensure land use compatibility and General Plan consistency over the life of this plan.

Exterior Noise Levels
 The City’s acceptable exterior noise level objective is 60 dBA DNL or less for residential and most institutional land uses (Table EC‐1). The acceptable exterior noise level objective is established for the City, except in the environs of the San José International Airport and the Downtown, as described below:
 For new multi‐family residential projects and for the residential component of mixed‐use development, use a standard of 60 dBA DNL in usable outdoor activity areas, excluding balconies and residential stoops and porches facing existing roadways. Some common use areas that meet the 60 dBA DNL exterior standard will be available to all residents. Use noise attenuation techniques such as shielding by buildings and structures for outdoor common use areas. On sites subject to aircraft overflights or adjacent to elevated roadways, use noise attenuation techniques to achieve the 60 dBA DNL standard for noise from sources other than aircraft and elevated roadway segments.  Forsingle family residential uses, use a standard of 60 dBA DNL for exterior noise in private usable outdoor activity areas, such as backyards.

Although not explicitly stated in the General Plan, exterior noise level standards are typically applied to “outdoor activity areas”. Outdoor activity areas are generally considered to be backyards of single‐family residential land uses, common use outdoor areas and individual patios and balconies of multi‐family residential land uses, and common use outdoor areas for transient lodging land uses.
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 5
EC‐1.2 Minimize the noise impacts of new development on land uses sensitive to increased noise levels (Categories 1, 2, 3 and 6) by limiting noise generation and by requiring use of noise attenuation measures such as acoustical enclosures and sound barriers, where feasible. The City considers significant noise impacts to occur if a project would:
 Cause the DNL at noise sensitive receptors to increase by five dBA DNL or more where the noise levels would remain “Normally Acceptable"
 Cause the DNL at noise sensitive receptors to increase by three dBA DNL or more where the noise levels would equal or exceed the “Normally Acceptable” level.

EC‐1.3 Mitigate noise generation of new nonresidential land uses to 55 dBA DNL at the property line when located adjacent to existing or planned noise sensitive residential and public/quasi‐ public land uses.
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 6
b. Construction Noise and Vibration
The General Plan provides establishes the following guidelines related to construction activities:

EC‐1.7 Require construction operations within San José to use best available noise suppression devices and techniques and limit construction hours near residential uses per the City’s Municipal Code. The City considers significant construction noise impacts to occur if a project located within 500 feet of residential uses or 200 feet of commercial or office uses would:
 Involve substantial noise generating activities (such as building demolition, grading, excavation, pile driving, use of impact equipment, or building framing) continuing for more than 12 months.

For such large or complex projects, a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting or notification of construction schedules, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints will be required to be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses.

Additionally, section 20.100.450 of the City of San Jose Municipal code provides the following:
 Unless otherwise expressly allowed in a development permit or other planning approval, no applicant or agent of an applicant shall suffer or allow any construction activity on a site located within 500 feet of a residential unit before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or at any time on weekends.

The General Plan also provides some guidance and guidelines associated with vibration.

Goal EC‐2 ‐ Vibration
Minimize vibration impacts on people, residences, and business operations.

EC‐2.3
Require new development to minimize continuous vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. For sensitive historic structures, including ruins and ancient monuments or building that are documented to be structurally weakened, a continuous vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV (peak particle velocity) will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to a building. A continuous vibration limit of 0.20 in/sec PPV will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction. Equipment or activities typical of generating continuous vibration include but are not limited to: excavation equipment; static compaction equipment; vibratory pile drivers; pile‐extraction equipment; and vibratory compaction equipment. Avoid use of impact pile drivers within 125 feet of any buildings, and within 300 feet of historical buildings, or buildings in poor condition. On a project‐specific basis, this distance of 300 feet may be reduced where warranted by a technical study by a qualified professional that verifies that there will be virtually no risk of cosmetic damage to sensitive buildings from the new development during demolition and construction. Transient vibration 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 7
impacts may exceed a vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV only when and where warranted by a technical study by a qualified professional that verifies that there will be virtually no risk of cosmetic damage to sensitive buildings from the new development during demolition and construction.

Additional guidance is provided by the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual3. The Manual provides guidance for determining annoyance potential criteria and damage potential threshold criteria. These criteria are provided below in Table I and Table II, and are presented in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec).

TABLE I

GUIDELINE VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA
Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely Perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly Perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly Perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans

TABLE II

GUIDELINE VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile, historic buildings, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Caltrans
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 8

3. SETTING
The project site is located adjacent at 1212 and 1224 S. Winchester Boulevard, approximately 500 feet north of Payne Avenue. Existing single‐family residences border the project site to the east and to the north, although some of the residences are currently being utilized as office uses. The project site is bordered to the south by a skilled nursing facility and to the west by existing office uses.
a. Background Noise Level Measurements
Existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise along local roadways adjacent to and the in vicinity of the project site, specifically S. Winchester Boulevard.

Additional sources of noise observed during site inspection included aircraft overflights, birds, barking dogs, construction activities and landscaping activities.

Measurements of existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity were conducted on September 19 and September 20, 2019. Long‐term (24‐hour) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at two (2) locations (sites LT‐1 and LT‐2). Site LT‐1 was located at the rear (in the backyard) of 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard, at a distance of approximately 185 feet from the center of the roadway. Site LT‐2 was located in the front of 1212 S. Winchester Boulevard at a distance of approximately 90 feet from the center of the roadway. Both sites were exposed to traffic noise associated with vehicles on S. Winchester Boulevard, however, site LT‐1 was partially acoustically shielded from roadway noise by the existing structure. Both sites were also exposed to noise associated with aircraft overflights and noise associated with residential activities, including construction and landscaping activities.

Additionally, short‐term (15‐minute) ambient noise level measurements were conducted at six (6) locations (Sites ST‐1 through ST‐6). Two (2) individual measurements were taken at each of the five short‐term sites to quantify ambient noise levels in the morning and afternoon hours. The project vicinity and locations of the noise monitoring sites are shown on Figure 2.

Noise monitoring equipment consisted of Larson‐Davis Laboratories Model LDL‐820 sound level analyzers equipped with B&K Type 4176 1/2” microphones. The equipment complies with the specifications of the AmericanNational StandardsInstitute (ANSI) for Type I (Precision) sound level meters. The meters were calibrated with a B&K Type 4230 acoustic calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐1 ranged from a low of 40.9 dB between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. to a high of 51.7 dB between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐1 ranged from 52.7 to 74.6 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90 statistical descriptor ranged from 37.7 to 48.3 dB. The L90 is a statistical descriptor that defines the noise level exceeded 90% of the time during each hour of the sample period. The L90 is generally considered to represent the residual (or background) noise level in the absence of identifiable single noise events from traffic, aircraft and other local noise sources.

The measured Ldn value at site LT‐1 during the 24‐hour noise measurement period was 53.1 dB Ldn. 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 9
Figure 3 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at the LT‐1 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

Measured hourly energy average noise levels (Leq) at site LT‐2 ranged from a low of 53.2 dB between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. to a high of 66.6 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Hourly maximum (Lmax) noise levels at site LT‐2 ranged from 71.5 to 93.6 dB. Residual noise levels at the monitoring site, as defined by the L90, ranged from 41.5 to 54.7 dB. The measured Ldn value at site LT‐2 during the 24‐hour noise measurement period was 66.5 dB Ldn. Figure 4 graphically depicts hourly variations in ambient noise levels at the LT‐2 long‐term monitoring site as well as a site photograph.

The short‐term site noise measurement data included energy average (Leq) maximum (Lmax) as well as five (5) individual statistical parameters. Observations were made of the dominant noise sources affecting the measurements. The statistical parameters describe the percent of time a noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. Table III summarizes short‐term noise measurement results.

TABLE III

SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
1212 & 1224 WINCHESTER HOTEL PROJECT

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 19 & 20, 2019
Site Time
A‐Weighted Decibels, dBA Sources
Leq Lmax L2 L8 L25 L50 L90
ST‐1 8:15 a.m. 50.1 63.4 56.7 54.0 51.4 49.3 45.2 TR, L ST‐1 2:45 p.m. 47.8 55.4 53.3 51.1 48.4 46.8 44.3 TR, V ST‐2 8:35 a.m. 68.1 77.7 74.0 71.2 68.8 63.7 53.4 TR
ST‐2 3:05 p.m. 67.3 73.6 73.2 72.2 69.0 65.2 52.7 TR, C ST‐3 9:00 a.m. 60.1 72.6 67.0 62.1 60.1 55.2 51.0 TR, AC ST‐3 3:30 p.m. 59.8 70.1 66.7 64.3 61.2 56.6 50.4 TR
ST‐4 9:20 a.m. 62.8 72.4 67.4 63.1 58.9 56.7 52.9 TR
ST‐4 3:50 p.m. 63.1 71.4 68.9 65.7 60.5 58.8 53.2 TR, AC ST‐5 9:40 a.m. 55.5 72.1 64.4 67.1 52.5 43.2 41.9 TR, V, B ST‐5 4:10 p.m. 53.5 70.4 63.9 56.1 50.5 44.8 41.8 TR, B, D ST‐6 10:05 a.m. 56.7 77.5 64.9 52.4 50.3 48.0 46.0 TR, C, D ST‐6 4:35 p.m. 55.4 78.8 63.2 50.5 48.6 47.4 45.6 TR, V TR: Traffic AC: Aircraft V: Voices B: Birds R: L: Landscaping Activities C: Construction D: Barking Dogs Source: WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Short‐term noise measurements were conducted for 15‐minute periods. Sites ST‐1, ST‐5 and ST‐6 were located in residential areas not immediately adjacent to S. Winchester Boulevard, and were therefore exposed to lower noise levels than sites ST‐2, ST‐3 and ST‐4, which were located immediately adjacent to S. Winchester Boulevard. All of the six short‐term monitoring sites were exposed to noise from traffic sources as well as various combinations of construction noise sources, aircraft overflights and other sources typical of an urban residential environment (barking dogs, birds, landscaping activities, etc.).
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 10

4. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
a. Project Traffic Noise Impacts on Existing Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Outside Project Site (No Impact)
WJVA utilized the FHWA Traffic Noise Model4 to quantify expected project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure at representative noise‐sensitive receptor locations in the project vicinity.

Traffic noise exposure levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions were calculated based upon the FHWA Model and traffic volumes provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Cumulative traffic volumes reflect projected traffic volumes on the planned roadway network with completion of the pending developments in the area as well as the proposed project and approved developments. The day/night distribution of traffic and the percentages of trucks on the roadways used for modeling were obtained from previous studies WJVA has conducted along similar roadways. The Noise modeling assumptions used to calculate project traffic noise are provided as Appendix C.

Project‐related significant impacts would occur if an increase in traffic noise associated with the project would result in noise levels exceeding the City’s applicable noise level standards at the location(s) of sensitive receptors. For the purpose of this analysis a significant impact is also assumed to occur if traffic noise levels were to increase by 3 dB at sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s applicable noise level standards (without the project), as 3 dB generally represents the threshold of perception in change for the human ear.

This analysis of project traffic noise focuses on residential land uses, as they represent the most restrictive noise level criteria by land use type provided in the General Plan. The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dB Ldn. Traffic noise was modeled at eight (8) receptor locations (R‐1 through R‐8). The six modeled receptors are located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (residences) along each analyzed roadway segment. The receptor locations are described below and provided graphically on Figure 5.  R‐1: Approximately 120 feet from the centerline of Winchester Blvd, north of Williams Rd  R‐2: Approximately 60 feet from the centerline of Williams Rd, west of Winchester Blvd.  R‐3: Approximately 130 feet from the centerline of Williams Rd, east of Winchester Blvd.  R‐4: Approximately 140 feet from the centerline of Winchester Blvd, north of Fireside Dr.  R‐5: Approximately 180 feet from the centerline of Winchester Blvd, south of Fireside Dr.  R‐6: Approximately 140 feet from the centerline of Payne Ave, west of Winchester Blvd.  R‐7: Approximately 115 feet from the centerline of Payne Ave, east of Winchester Blvd.  R‐8: Approximately 170 feet from the centerline of Winchester Blvd, south of Payne Ave.

Table IV provides a comparison of traffic noise levels at the six modeled receptor locations for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions. Noise levels described in Table IV do nottake into account any localized acoustic shielding that may result from intervening topography, existing buildings or existing sound walls, and should be considered a worst‐case assessment of traffic noise exposure levels. As described in Table IV, project‐related traffic is not expected to result in noise levels at any sensitive receptors to exceed the City’s noise 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 11
level standard, nor result in an increase of 3 dB in any sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the County’s noise level standard withoutthe implementation of the project.

Project‐related traffic is not expected to increase traffic noise levels at any roadway. Therefore, project‐related increases in traffic noise exposure is considered to be no impact.

TABLE IV
PROJECT-RELATED INCREASES IN TRAFFIC NOISE, dB, Ldn
1212 & 1224 WINCHESTER HOTEL PROJECT
Modeled
Receptor Existing Existing Plus Project Cumulative
Cumulative
Plus Project
Change
(Maximum)
Significant
Impact?
R‐1   64 64 64 64 0 No
R‐2 64 64 65 65 0 No
R‐3 53 53 54 54 0 No
R‐4 59 59 60 60 0 No
R‐5 64 64 64 64 0 No
R‐6   58 58 59 59 0 No
R‐7 55 55 55 55 0 No
R‐8 63 63 64 64 0 No
Source:  WJV Acoustics, Inc.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants
b. Noise Impacts from On-Site Noise Sources (No Impact) Sources of operational noise from the proposed hotel development would typically be limited to parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor human activity and Mechanical/HVAC systems. The project design does not include any loading docks or trash compactors. The project would incorporate 66 parking spaces, located at basement level. Accessto the parking area is provided along Winchester Boulevard, at the front of the building.

Noise due to traffic in parking lots is typically limited by low speeds and is not usually considered to be significant. Human activity in parking lots that can produce noise includes voices, stereo systems and the opening and closing of car doors and trunk lids. The noise levels associated with these activities cannot be precisely defined due to variablessuch asthe number of parking movements, time of day and other factors. It is typical for a passing car in a parking lot to produce a maximum noise level of 60 to 65 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which is comparable to the level of a raised voice. However, all project parking spaces will be located within the structure of the building, below grade, and noise associated with vehicle movements would not be audible at any nearby sensitive receptor locations.

According to the project applicant, it is anticipated that there would be approximately 1‐2 truck deliveries per day. The project provides a drop‐off area to the south of the parking access entry 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 12
area where smaller trucks would utilize during deliveries. If larger truck deliveries were to occur, they would likely park along S. Winchester Boulevard in front of the project site. Vehicle movements on public roadways are exempt from local noise standards and ordinances.

WJVA has conducted measurements of the noise levels produced by slowly moving trucks for a number of studies. Such truck movements would be expected to produce noise levels in the range of 71‐77 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The range in measured truck noise levels is due to differences in the size of trucks, their speed of movement and whether they have refrigeration units in operation during the pass‐by. Due to the infrequent nature of truck deliveries, and truck movements within the project site itself, noise levels associated with truck movements would not exceed any noise standards at off‐site sensitive receptor locations or result in an increase of existing ambient noise levels.

Although a location was not specifically shown in the project plans provided to WJVA, it is assumed that the project could include roof‐mounted Mechanical/HVAC units on the building. Based upon data collected by WJVA for previous acoustical studies, it is estimated that noise levels from roof‐mounted HVAC units at the closest off‐site sensitive receptor locations to the project site (nearby residential land uses) would be in the range of 45‐50 dBA. These levels would generally not be audible above existing ambient noise levels at adjacent land‐uses and would not exceed any City of San Jose noise level standards.
c. Noise From Construction (Less Than Significant With Mitigation) Policy EC‐1.7 of the General Plan requires construction operations within the City to use best available noise suppression devices and techniques and limit construction hours near residential uses per the City’s Municipal Code. The City considers significant construction noise impacts to occurif a project located within 500 feet of residential uses or 200 feet of commercial or office uses would involve substantial noise generating activities (such as building demolition, grading, excavation, pile driving, use of impact equipment, or building framing) continuing for more than twelve months.

Section 20.100.450 of the City of San Jose Municipal code requires any construction activity on a site located within 500 feet of a residential unit must occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and no construction activities are allowed on weekends.

Construction noise would occur at various locations within and near the project site through the build‐out period. The distance from the closest residences to the project site is approximately 50 feet. Table V provides typical construction‐related noise levels at distances of 50 feet, 100 feet, and 200 feet.
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 13

TABLE V

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS, dBA
Type of Equipment 50 Ft. 100 Ft. 200 Ft.

Concrete Saw 90 84 78
Crane 81 75 69
Excavator 81 75 69
Front End Loader 79 73 67
Jackhammer 89 83 77
Paver 77 71 65
Pneumatic Tools 85 79 73
Dozer 82 76 70
Rollers 80 74 68
Trucks 86 80 74
Pumps 80 74 68
Scrapers 87 81 75
Portable Generators 80 74 68
Backhoe 86 80 74
Grader 86 80 74
Source: FHWA
Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987 Noise impacts associated with construction activities typically depend on the noise levels generated by the type of equipment in use, the duration of usage of the equipment and the distance at which the equipment is used in respectto nearby sensitive receptors. Noise impacts typically occur when construction activities occur beyond the limited hours of construction and/or within close proximity to sensitive receptors (residential land uses).

The anticipated duration of project construction was not known at the time this analysis was prepared. However, construction activities will occur within 500 feet of residential land uses and within 200 feet of office uses.

Construction noise is typically not considered to be a significant impact if construction is limited to the daytime hours and construction equipment is adequately maintained and muffled.

Extraordinary noise‐producing activities (e.g., pile driving) are not anticipated. In this case, all project construction activity must be confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residents if nighttime operations were to occur or if equipment is not properly muffled or maintained. If construction activities that involved substantial noise generating activities (such as building demolition, grading, excavation, pile driving, use of impact equipment, or building framing) for a duration greater than twelve months, a substantial impact would occur. 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 14
Potential Impact: If the overall duration of construction activities were to occur over a period greater than twelve months, a noise impact would occur, as determined by the City of San Jose Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure: If project construction occurs for a duration greaterthan twelve months, the project team must provide a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting or notification of construction schedules, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints will be required to be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses.

Vibration Impacts (Less Than Significant)
The dominant sources of man‐made vibration are sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling. The highest levels of construction‐ related vibration are typically associated with pile driving and the use of vibratory rollers. While the project would include pavement breaking and demolition activities, project demolition and construction would not require pile driving or the use of a vibratory roller. Vibration from demolition and construction activities could be detected at the closest sensitive land uses, especially during demolition (pavement/concrete breaking), movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if they were to occur). Typical vibration levels at distances of 25 feet, 100 feet and 300 feet are summarized by Table VI. These levels would not be expected to exceed any significantthreshold levelsfor annoyance or damage, as provided above in Table I and Table II.

TABLE VI

TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS DURING CONSTRUCTION
PPV (in/sec)
Equipment @ 25´ @ 100´ @ 300´
Bulldozer (Large) 0.089 0.019 0.006
Bulldozer (Small) 0.003 0.0006 0.0002
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.017 0.005
Jackhammer 0.035 0.008 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.046 0.013
Caisson Drilling   0.089 0.019 0.006
Source:  Caltrans
Project demolition and construction activities would not be expected to produce continuous vibration levels exceeding the City’s criterion of 0.20 in/sec PPV at nearby sensitive receptor locations. After full project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities will result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses. Activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor on‐site vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground.  Such vibrations 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 15
would not be expected to be felt at the closest off‐site sensitive uses. Additional mitigation is not required.
e. Noise Impacts from Nearby Airports or Airstrips (No Impact) The Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The San Jose International Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site. f. Noise Impacts to On-Site Proposed Noise-Sensitive Uses (Less Than Significant)
The General Plan establishes an exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn for residential land uses (including hotels and motels). The exterior noise level standard applies to usable outdoor activity areas, excluding balconies and residential stoops and porches facing existing roadways. The General Plan also establishes an interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn (attributable to exterior noise sources) within residential land uses.

Exterior Noise
The project would include one (1) rooftop common use seating areas(Roof Terrace). The rooftop terrace area would be partially acoustically shielded from most exterior traffic noise, and there would be no line‐of‐sight between the majority of rooftop seating areas and nearby roadway traffic. There will also be a plexiglass barrier along the western portion of the terrace area. Based upon traffic noise calculations in the project vicinity and anticipated acoustical shielding, noise levels within the common use roof terrace area would be in the range of approximately 55‐60 dB Ldn.

Interior Noise
The City’s interior noise level standard is 45 dB Ldn. The worst‐case (cumulative plus project traffic conditions) noise exposure at the closest exterior facades to Winchester Boulevard would be approximately 67 dB Ldn. This means that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) of approximately 22 dB (67‐ 45=22).

A specific analysis of interior noise levels was not performed. However, it may be assumed that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements will reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB or more if windows and doors are closed. This will be sufficient for compliance with the City’s 45 dB Ldn interior standard at all proposed residential units.

Requiring that it be possible for windows and doors to remain closed for sound insulation means that air conditioning or mechanical ventilation will be required. 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 16

5. IMPACT SUMMARY
This impactsummary addresses only the noise impacts determined to be “potentially significant” and summarizes the mitigation measures that would be required to reduce noise levels to a “less than significant” level. Project‐related noise levels resulting from the proposed Winchester Hotel project are not expected to exceed any applicable City of San Jose noise level standards if proper mitigation measures are incorporated into project construction operations. Potential impacts and correlating mitigation measures are described in detail above, and summarized below.

Potential Impact: If the overall duration of construction activities were to occur over a period greater than twelve months, a noise impact would occur, as determined by the City of San Jose Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure: If project construction occurs for a duration greater than twelve months, the project team must provide a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting or notification of construction schedules, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints will be required to be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 17

6. SOURCES CONSULTED

1. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, November 2011.

2. San Jose Municipal Code, 2000.

3. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.

4. Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5, April 14, 2004 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 18
FIGURE 1: PROJECT FLOOR PLAN
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 19
FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY AND AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING SITES 19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 20
FIGURE 3: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT LONG-TERM MONITORING SITE LT-1 20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐1
September 19, 2019
Lmax
Leq
L90
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 21
FIGURE 4: HOURLY NOISE LEVELS AT LONG-TERM MONITORING SITE LT-2 20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Levels, dBA
Time
Site LT‐2
September 19, 2019
Lmax
Leq
L90
19‐041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9‐17‐20 22
FIGURE 5: LOCATIONS OF MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE RECEPTORS
APPENDIX A-1

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of approximately five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.

DECIBEL, dB: A unit for describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals(20 micronewtons per square meter).

DNL/Ldn: Day/Night Average Sound Level. The average equivalent sound level during a 24‐hour day, obtained after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.

Leq: Equivalent Sound Level. The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24‐hour sample periods.

NOTE: The CNEL and DNL represent daily levels of noise exposure averaged on an annual basis, while Leq represents the average noise exposure for a shorter time period, typically one hour.

Lmax: The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event.

Ln: The sound level exceeded "n" percent of the time during a sample interval (L90, L50, L10, etc.). For example, L10 equals the level exceeded 10 percent of the time.

A-2

ACOUSTICAL TERMINOLOGY
NOISE EXPOSURE
CONTOURS: Lines drawn about a noise source indicating constant levels of noise exposure. CNEL and DNL contours are frequently utilized to describe community exposure to noise.

NOISE LEVEL
REDUCTION (NLR): The noise reduction between indoor and outdoor environments or between two rooms that is the numerical difference, in decibels, of the average sound pressure levels in those areas or rooms. A measurement of Anoise level reduction” combines the effect of the transmission loss performance of the structure plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

SEL or SENEL: Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. The level of noise accumulated during a single noise event, such as an aircraft overflight, with reference to a duration of one second.

More specifically, it is the time‐integrated A‐weighted squared sound pressure for a stated time interval or event, based on a reference pressure of 20 micropascals and a reference duration of one second.

SOUND LEVEL: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.

SOUND TRANSMISSION
CLASS (STC): The single‐number rating of sound transmission loss for a construction element (window, door, etc.) over a frequency range where speech intelligibility largely occurs.

APPENDIX C

TRAFFIC NOISE MODELING CALCULATIONS
WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
September 17, 2020
Project #: 19-041 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: ExistingLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Winchester Blvd n/o Williams Rd R-1 22550 90 10 2 2 40 1202 Williams Rd w/o Winchester Blvd R-2 8550 90 10 2 2 40 603 Williams Rd e/o Winchester Blvd R-3 2420 90 10 2 2 40 1304 Winchester Blvd n/o Fireside Dr. R-4 21230 90 10 2 2 40 2405 Winchester Blvd s/o Fireside Dr. R-5 20850 90 10 2 2 40 115 6 Payne Ave w/o Winchester Blvd R-6 8650 90 10 2 2 40 140 7 Payne Ave e/o Winchester Blvd R-7 4090 90 10 2 2 40 140 8 Winchester Blvd s/o Payne Ave R-8 20430 90 10 2 2 40 115 WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
September 17, 2020
Project #: 19-041 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Existing Plus ProjectLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Winchester Blvd n/o Williams Rd R-1 22800 90 10 2 2 40 1202 Williams Rd w/o Winchester Blvd R-2 8610 90 10 2 2 40 603 Williams Rd e/o Winchester Blvd R-3 2420 90 10 2 2 40 1304 Winchester Blvd n/o Fireside Dr. R-4 21530 90 10 2 2 40 2405 Winchester Blvd s/o Fireside Dr. R-5 21340 90 10 2 2 40 115 6 Payne Ave w/o Winchester Blvd R-6 8710 90 10 2 2 40 140 7 Payne Ave e/o Winchester Blvd R-7 4090 90 10 2 2 40 140 8 Winchester Blvd s/o Payne Ave R-8 20820 90 10 2 2 40 115 WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
September 17, 2020
Project #: 19-041 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Cumulative Ldn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Winchester Blvd n/o Williams Rd R-1 26870 90 10 2 2 40 1202 Williams Rd w/o Winchester Blvd R-2 10490 90 10 2 2 40 603 Williams Rd e/o Winchester Blvd R-3 3020 90 10 2 2 40 1304 Winchester Blvd n/o Fireside Dr. R-4 24970 90 10 2 2 40 2405 Winchester Blvd s/o Fireside Dr. R-5 24590 90 10 2 2 40 115 6 Payne Ave w/o Winchester Blvd R-6 9310 90 10 2 2 40 140 7 Payne Ave e/o Winchester Blvd R-7 4330 90 10 2 2 40 140 8 Winchester Blvd s/o Payne Ave R-8 23700 90 10 2 2 40 115 WJV Acoustics, Inc
FHWA-RD-77-108Calculation Sheets
September 17, 2020
Project #: 19-041 Contour Levels (dB) 60 65 70 75Description: Cumulative + ProjectLdn/Cnel: LdnSite Type: SoftSegment Roadway Name Segment Description ADT %Day %Evening %Night %Med %Heavy Speed Distance Offset 1 Winchester Blvd n/o Williams Rd R-1 27120 90 10 2 2 40 1202 Williams Rd w/o Winchester Blvd R-2 10550 90 10 2 2 40 603 Williams Rd e/o Winchester Blvd R-3 3020 90 10 2 2 40 1304 Winchester Blvd n/o Fireside Dr. R-4 25270 90 10 2 2 40 2405 Winchester Blvd s/o Fireside Dr. R-5 25080 90 10 2 2 40 115 6 Payne Ave w/o Winchester Blvd R-6 9370 90 10 2 2 40 140 7 Payne Ave e/o Winchester Blvd R-7 4330 90 10 2 2 40 140 8 Winchester Blvd s/o Payne Ave R-8 24090 90 10 2 2 40 115

APPENDIX H

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

1212 South Winchester Hotel
Development
Transportation Analysis
Prepared for:

Visrael 26, LLC.

June 18, 2020
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 8070 Santa Teresa Boulevard, Suite 230
Gilroy, CA 95020
Hexagon Job Number: 19RD24
Phone: 408.846.7410
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i

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

2. Existing Transportation Setting ..................................................................................................... 15

3. CEQA Transportation Analysis ..................................................................................................... 20

4. Local Transportation Analysis ....................................................................................................... 25

5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendices
Appendix A San Jose VMT Evaluation Tool Output Sheet
Appendix B Traffic Counts
Appendix C Approved Trips Inventory
Appendix D Volume Summary
Appendix E Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Appendix F Queue Length Calculations
Appendix G Signal Warrant Check
List of Tables
Table 1 CEQA VMT Analysis Screening Criteria for Development Projects ..................................... 12 Table 2 Equivalent Retail Space ....................................................................................................... 21 Table 3 Project Trip Generation Estimates ....................................................................................... 27 Table 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ...................... 40 Table 5 Intersection Level of Service Results ................................................................................... 42 Table 6 Queuing Analysis Summary ................................................................................................. 45 Table 7 Freeway Segment Capacity ................................................................................................. 55 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location ....................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 VMT per Capita Heat Map in San Jose .............................................................................. 8 Figure 4 VMT per Job Heat Map in San Jose ................................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Low VMT per Capita Areas in San Jose ........................................................................... 10 Figure 6 Low VMT per Job Areas in San Jose ................................................................................ 11 Figure 7 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................. 17 Figure 8 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9 VMT per Employee Heat Map in Project Area .................................................................. 22 Figure 10 Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................28 Figure 11 Project Trip Assignment ................................................................................................... 29 Figure 12 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 13 Winchester Boulevard Complete Street Improvement ..................................................... 32 Figure 14 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 36 Figure 15 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 37 Figure 16 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 38 Figure 17 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 39 Figure 18 Gross Project Trips at Site Driveways .............................................................................. 47 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Figure 19 Cadillac Residential Parking Program .............................................................................. 52 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of a Transportation Analysis (TA) for the proposed Winchester Hotel development at 1212-1224 South Winchester Blvd in the City of San Jose. The project site is located along the east side of Winchester Boulevard, approximately 450 feet north of Payne Avenue and within a designated Urban Village (Winchester Boulevard.

As proposed, the development would consist of the replacement of two single-family homes on-site with a 119-room hotel providing a total of 67 off-street parking spaces within a single below grade parking level. Access to and from the project site would be provided via one right-in/right-out driveway along Winchester Boulevard.

Transportation Analysis Scope
The transportation analysis of the project was evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth in the City of San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Policy (Council Policy 5-1), City of San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Handbook 2018, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program’s Transportation Impact Guidelines (October 2014), the City of Campbell traffic analysis guidelines, and by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the City of San Jose’s Transportation Policy and Transportation Analysis Handbook 2018, the TA report for the project consists of a CEQA vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) analysis and a supplemental Local Transportation Analysis (LTA).

CEQA Transportation Analysis Scope
The CEQA transportation analysis for the project consists of a project-level VMT impact analysis using the City’s VMT tool and a cumulative impact analysis that demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan.

Local Transportation Analysis Scope
The LTA includes the evaluation of weekday AM and PM peak hour operations at a limited number of intersections for the purpose of identifying operational issues (queuing, signal operations, and potential multi-modal issues) at intersections in the general vicinity of the project site. However, the determination of project impacts per CEQA requirements is based solely on the VMT analysis.

CEQA VMT Analysis
CEQA Transportation Analysis Exemption Criteria
The City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook identifies screening criteria that determines whether a CEQA transportation analysis would be required for development projects. The criteria are 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | ii
based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required.

Since the characteristics of the proposed hotel would have similar trip generating characteristics to retail space, the proposed hotel was converted into an equivalent amount of retail space based on trip generation estimates derived utilizing trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Based on the hotel rooms to retail space conversion, the proposed hotel project is expected to generate traffic equivalent to approximately 38,600 square feet of retail space.

Per the City of San Jose VMT screening criteria, retail projects of 100,000 square feet or less are considered local-serving. Therefore, the proposed hotel does not require a detailed CEQA VMT analysis.

Cumulative (GP Consistency) Evaluation
Projects must demonstrate consistency with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan to address cumulative impacts. Consistency with the City’s General Plan is based on the project’s density, design, and conformance to the General Plan goals and policies. If a project is determined to be inconsistent with the General Plan, a cumulative impact analysis is required per the City’s Transportation Analysis Handbook.

The project site is located within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village. Urban villages are defined as walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed use settings that provide both housing and jobs, thus supporting the policies and goals of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village goals and policies for the following reasons:
 The project frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be consistent with planned streetscape design features of Grand Boulevards and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan.  The project frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be designed to accommodate the planned Winchester Boulevard Complete Street improvements including protected bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety features.
 The project site is adjacent to bus stops and bicycle lanes on Winchester Boulevard.

Therefore, based on the project description, the proposed project would be consistent with the Urban Village Planning Concepts and the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Thus, the project would be considered as part of the cumulative solution to meet the General Plan’s long-range transportation goals and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

Local Transportation Analysis
The intersection operations analysis is intended to quantify the operations of intersections and to identify potential negative effects due to the addition of project traffic. However, a potential adverse effect on a study intersection operation is not considered a CEQA impact metric.

The LTA includes the analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for four signalized and one unsignalized intersections, following the standards and methodology set forth by the Cities of San Jose and Campbell.

Trip Generation
After applying the ITE trip rates, and appropriate trip reductions, it is estimated that the project would generate an additional 1,455 daily vehicle trips, with 64 trips (37 inbound and 27 outbound) occurring 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | iii
during the AM peak hour and 75 trips (37 inbound and 38 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour.

Future Intersection Operation Conditions
The operations analysis shows that all of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, based on the Cities of San Jose and Campbell, and CMP intersection operations standard of LOS D and E, respectively, under background conditions, background plus project, and cumulative plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours.

I-280/Winchester Boulevard Interchange Area Transportation Development Policy The TDP provides partial funding, via a traffic impact fee imposed on proposed development, for the implementation of a new westbound off-ramp from I-280 to Winchester Boulevard to reduce traffic congestion at the I-880/Stevens Creek and Stevens Creek Boulevard corridors. The traffic fee is based on the estimated trips to be added to the new westbound off-ramp from I-280 to Winchester Boulevard during the PM peak hour by each individual development. It is estimated that the proposed project will result in the addition of four PM peak hour trips to the planned I-280 to Winchester Boulevard ramp.

Adhere to City of San Jose Design Standards and Guidelines. The design of the project site, including but not limited to driveways, sidewalks, corner radii, street width, parking dimensions, and signage, should adhere to City of San Jose design standards and guidelines. Specific site access and on-site circulation recommended improvements are summarized below:
 In addition to providing a 20-foot sidewalk along the project frontage, the site driveway design must ensure the safe travel of pedestrians and bicyclists along Winchester Boulevard.

Appropriate visible and/or audible warning signals should be provided at the garage entrance to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage.  The proposed parking space dimensions, while not an unusual design, do not meet City standards and should be reviewed by City staff prior to final design.  It is recommended that the parking spaces located at the end of the dead-end aisle be dedicated for employee use.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | iv
 In lieu of providing off-street loading spaces, it is recommended that the project applicant work with City staff to determine the feasibility of providing a public loading zone on Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage.
 The City may not be supportive of the proposed loading zone along Winchester Boulevard and may require that the loading area be moved on-site. The project should work with the City to determine the feasibility of the proposed passenger loading zone on Winchester Boulevard.  The site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate the storing of at least two vehicles.

Parking Supply
Vehicular Parking
The City’s parking requirements for hotels are as follows: one parking space per room and one parking space per employee. The project would have 119 rooms and a maximum of 10 employees on-site.

Based on the City’s parking code requirements, the project would need to provide a total of 129 offstreet parking spaces. The project is located in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village. The Urban Village Overlay allows for a 20 percent reduction in parking with the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. With the 20 percent reduction, the required parking would be reduced to 104 parking spaces. The project proposes a total of 67 parking spaces, which is a 52 percent reduction from the City’s standard parking requirements.

In accordance with Sections 20.70.330 and 20.90.220 of the San Jose Code of Ordinances, which allows up to a 50% parking reduction, the additional 32 percent reduction could be allowed with the implementation and maintenance of a TDM plan. A separate TDM plan for the proposed project that meets the requirements set forth in the City’s Zoning Code will be prepared by Hexagon. The project will be required to submit and have approved by the City its TDM program.

Bicycle Parking
According to the City’s Bicycle Parking Standards, the project is required to provide 13 bicycle parking spaces. The project site plan indicates that two bicycle storage areas will be located within the basement level of the parking garage. The storage areas are shown to provide space for a total of 27 bicycles. Therefore, the proposed bicycle parking on-site will exceed the City’s requirements and encourage the use of non-auto modes of travel and minimize the demand for on-site parking.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Analysis
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks along Winchester Boulevard provide a pedestrian connection between the project site and pedestrian destinations in the project vicinity. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at the signalized intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue. All of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site have sidewalks on both sides of the street, except a short segment on the east side of Winchester Boulevard along the frontages of the project site and one adjacent property to the north. The project will install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard.

However, in order to close the sidewalk gap on the east side of Winchester Boulevard, it is recommended that the City staff work with the owner of the adjacent property to the north to install a sidewalk per City design standards.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | v
Bicycle Facilities
The bikeways within the vicinity of the project site would remain unchanged under project conditions.

Currently, no bike facilities exist on Winchester Boulevard between Payne Avenue and Moorpark Avenue that would provide connections to other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity.

The San Jose Bike Plan 2020 indicates that a variety of bicycle facilities are planned in the study area, some of which would benefit the project and adhere to the goals of the Envision 2040 General Plan. Of the planned facilities, the following are relevant to the project.

As a Grand Boulevard it is envisioned that Winchester Boulevard could potentially be included in the VTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System. However, there are no plans at this time for a BRT line on Winchester Boulevard.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of a Transportation Analysis (TA) for the proposed Winchester Hotel development at 1212-1224 South Winchester Blvd in the City of San Jose. The project site is located along the east side of Winchester Boulevard, approximately 450 feet north of Payne Avenue and within a designated Urban Village (Winchester Boulevard). According to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, the Urban Village strategy fosters:
 Mixed residential and employment activities that are attractive to an innovative workforce  Revitalization of underutilized properties that have access to existing infrastructure  Densities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking  High-quality urban design
As proposed, the development would consist of the replacement of two single-family homes on-site with a 119-room hotel providing a total of 67 parking spaces. Access to and from the project site would be provided via one right-in/right-out driveway along Winchester Boulevard. The project site location, the surrounding study area, and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village boundary are shown on Figure 1.

The project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

The transportation analysis of the project was evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth in the City of San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Policy (Council Policy 5-1), the City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook 2018, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program’s Transportation Impact Guidelines (October 2014), the City of Campbell traffic analysis guidelines, and by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the City of San Jose’s Transportation Policy and Transportation Analysis Handbook 2018, the TA report for the project consists of a CEQA vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) analysis and a supplemental Local Transportation Analysis (LTA).

Transportation Policies
Historically, transportation analysis has utilized delay and congestion on the roadway system as the primary metric for the identification of traffic impacts and potential roadway improvements to relieve traffic congestion that may result due to proposed/planned growth. However, the State of California has recognized the limitations of measuring and mitigating only vehicle delay at intersections and in 2013 passed Senate Bill (SB) 743, which requires jurisdictions to stop using congestion and delay metrics, such as Level of Service (LOS), as the measurement for CEQA transportation analysis. With the adoption of SB 743 legislation, public agencies will soon be required to base the determination of transportation impacts on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than level of service. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 2
Figure 1
Site Location
880
280
Payne Ave
Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave
Winchester Blvd Winchester Blvd
17 San Tomas Expressway San Tomas Expressway
Fireside Dr
= Project Site Location
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
= Winchester Boulevard
Urban Village Boundary
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 3
Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 4
Figure 2 (Cont’d) Proposed Site Plan (Basement Parking Level) 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 5
In adherence to SB 743, the City of San Jose has adopted a new Transportation Analysis Policy, Council Policy 5-1. The policy replaces its predecessor (Policy 5-3) and establishes the thresholds for transportation impacts under the CEQA based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of levels of service (LOS). The intent of this change is to shift the focus of transportation analysis under CEQA from vehicle delay and roadway auto capacity to a reduction in vehicle emissions, and the creation of robust multimodal networks that support integrated land uses. The new transportation policy aligns with the currently adopted General Plan which seeks to focus new development growth within Planned Growth Areas, bringing together office, residential, and supporting service land uses to internalize trips and reduce VMT. All new development projects are required to analyze transportation impacts using the VMT metric and conform to Council Policy 5-1.

The Circulation Element of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan includes a set of balanced, longrange, multi-modal transportation goals and policies that provide for a transportation network that is safe, efficient and sustainable (minimizes environmental, financial, and neighborhood impacts). These transportation goals and policies are intended to improve multi-modal accessibility to all land uses and create a city where people are less reliant on driving to meet their daily needs. The Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan contains the following policies to encourage the use of non-automobile transportation modes to minimize vehicle trip generation and reduce VMT:
 Consider impacts on overall mobility and all travel modes when evaluating transportation impacts of new developments or infrastructure projects (TR-1.2);  Through the entitlement process for new development, projects shall be required to fund or construct needed transportation improvements for all transportation modes, giving first consideration to improvement of biking, walking and transit facilities and services that encourage reduced vehicle travel demand (TR-1.4);
 Require new development where feasible to provide on-site facilities such as bicycle storage and showers, provide connections to existing and planned facilities, dedicate land to expand existing facilities or provide new facilities such as sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes/paths, or share in the cost of improvements (TR-2.8);
 As part of the development review process, require that new development along existing and planned transit facilities consist of land use and development types and intensities that contribute towards transit ridership. In addition, require that new development is designed to accommodate and to provide direct access to transit facilities (TR-3.3);  Discourage, as part of the entitlement process, the provision of parking spaces significantly above the number of spaces required by code for a given use (TR-8.4);  Allow reduced parking requirements for mixed-use developments and for developments providing shared parking or a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program, or developments located near major transit hubs or within Villages and Corridors and other growth areas (TR-8.6);
 Encourage private property owners to share their underutilized parking supplies with the general public and/or other adjacent private developments (TR-8.7);  Within new development, create and maintain a pedestrian-friendly environment by connecting the internal components with safe, convenient, accessible, and pleasant pedestrian facilities and by requiring pedestrian connections between building entrances, other site features, and adjacent public streets (CD-3.3);
 Create a pedestrian-friendly environment by connecting new residential development with safe, convenient, accessible, and pleasant pedestrian facilities. Provide such connections between 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 6
new development, its adjoining neighborhood, transit access points, schools, parks, and nearby commercial areas (LU-9.1);
 Encourage all developers to install and maintain trails when new development occurs adjacent to a designated trail location. Use the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance and Park Impact Ordinance to have residential developers build trails when new residential development occurs adjacent to a designated trail location, consistent with other parkland priorities. Encourage developers or property owners to enter into formal agreements with the City to maintain trails adjacent to their properties (PR-8.5).

VMT Analysis
The City of San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Policy establishes procedures for determining project impacts on VMT based on project description, characteristics, and/or location. The City of San Jose defines VMT as the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a day. VMT is calculated for residential, office, and industrial projects using the OriginDestination VMT method, which measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips with one end within the project. A project’s VMT is compared to established thresholds of significance based on the project location and type of development. When assessing a residential project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of residents expected to occupy the project to determine the VMT per capita.

When assessing an office or industrial project, the project’s VMT is divided by the number of employees.

Typically, development projects that are farther from other, complementary land uses (such as a business park far from housing) and in areas without transit or active transportation infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) generate more driving than development near complementary land uses with more robust transportation options. Therefore, developments located in a central business district with high density and diversity of complementary land uses and frequent transit services are expected to internalize trips and generate shorter and fewer vehicle trips than developments located in a suburban area with low density of residential developments and no transit serve in the project vicinity.

VMT Evaluation Tool
To determine whether a project would result in CEQA transportation impacts related to VMT, the City has developed the San Jose VMT Evaluation Tool to streamline the analysis for development projects.

For non-residential or non-office projects, very large projects, or projects that can potentially shift travel patterns, the City’s Travel Demand Model can be used to determine project VMT.

Based on the assessor’s parcel number (APN) of a project, the VMT evaluation tool identifies the existing average VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the project area. Based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction measures, the VMT evaluation tool calculates the project VMT. Projects located in areas where the existing VMT is above the established threshold are referred to as being in “high-VMT areas”. Projects in high-VMT areas are required to include a set of VMT reduction measures that would reduce the project VMT to the extent possible.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 7
The thresholds of significance for development projects, as established in the Transportation Analysis Policy, are based on the existing citywide average VMT level for residential uses and the existing regional average VMT level for employment uses. Figures 3 and 4 show the current VMT levels estimated by the City’s travel demand model. Areas are color-coded based on the level of existing VMT:
 Green-filled areas are parcels with existing VMT less than the City’s residential and employee thresholds of 10.12 VMT per capita and 12.21 per employee. The thresholds are calculated by subtracting 15 percent from the citywide average of 11.91 VMT per capita and regional average of 14.37 per employee.
 Yellow-filled areas are parcels with existing VMT between the residential and employee thresholds and the city-wide average of 11.91 VMT per capita and regional average 14.37 VMT per employee.
 Orange-filled areas are parcels with existing VMT greater than the residential and employee thresholds. However, a project’s VMT impact may be mitigated by implementing VMT-reducing measures.

Red-filled areas are parcels with existing VMT greater than the residential and employee threshold. Implementing VMT-reducing measures will not be sufficient to reduce a project’s VMT to less than the threshold of significance.

Average per-capita and per-employee VMT for all the existing developments within ½ mile buffer of each parcel in the City serves as the baseline from which a project is evaluated. The VMT in the proposed project site vicinity is presented in further detail in Chapter 3.

Screening for VMT Analysis
The City’s VMT methodology includes screening criteria that are used to identify types, characteristics, and/or locations of projects that would not exceed the CEQA thresholds of significance. If a project or a component of a mixed-use project meets the screening criteria, it is then presumed that the project or the component would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and a VMT analysis is not required.

The type of development projects that may meet the screening criteria include the following:
(1) small infill projects
(2) local-serving retail
(3) local-serving public facilities
(4) projects located in Planned Growth Areas with low VMT and High-Quality Transit (5) deed-restricted affordable housing located in Planned Growth Areas with High-Quality Transit Figures 5 and 6 identify areas within the City that currently have low VMT levels estimated by the City for residents and workers, respectively, for which transit supportive development located within a priority growth area would be screened out of the evaluation of VMT. Table 1 summarizes the screening criteria that must be considered for each type of development project as identified in the City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook.

For the purpose of VMT evaluation, hotel rooms are converted to equivalent retail space to provide an estimate of similar trip-making characteristics (origin and destination of trips). Per the City of San Jose VMT screening criteria, retail projects of 100,000 square feet or less are considered local-serving.

Based on the hotel rooms to retail space conversion, the proposed hotel project is expected to generate traffic equivalent to 38,600 square feet of retail space. Therefore, the proposed hotel will be less than the 100,000 s.f. retail threshold screening criterion for local-serving retail and does not require a detailed CEQA transportation analysis, as described in further detail in Chapter 3. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 8
Figure 3 VMT per Capita Heat Map in San Jose
Source: City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018) 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 9
Figure 4 VMT per Job Heat Map in San Jose
Source: City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018) 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 10
Figure 5 Low VMT per Capita Areas in San Jose
Source: City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018) 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 11
Figure 6 Low VMT per Job Areas in San Jose
Source: City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018) 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 12
Table 1
CEQA VMT Analysis Screening Criteria for Development Projects Source: City of San José Transportation Analysis Handbook, April 2018.

Local-Serving
Public Facilities  Local-serving public facilities
Residential/Office
Projects or
Components
 Planned Growth Areas: Located within a Planned Growth Area as defined in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan; AND
 High-Quality Transit: Located within ½ a mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor; AND
 Low VMT: Located in an area in which the per capita VMT is less than or equal to the CEQA significance threshold for the land use; AND
 Transit-Supporting Project Density:
 Minimum Gross Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.75 for office projects or components;  Minimum of 35 units per acre for residential projects or components;  If located in a Planned Growth Area that has a maximum density below 0.75 FAR or 35 units per acre, the maximum density allowed in the Planned Growth Area must be met; AND  Parking:
 No more than the minimum number of parking spaces required;  If located in Urban Villages or Downtown, the number of parking spaces must be adjusted to the lowest amount allowed; however, if the parking is shared, publicly available, and/or “unbundled”, the number of parking spaces can be up to the zoned minimum; AND  Active Transportation: Not negatively impact transit, bike or pedestrian infrastructure.  Affordability: 100% restricted affordable units, excluding unrestricted manager units; affordability must extend for a minimum of 55 years for rental homes or 45 years for for-sale homes; AND
 Planned Growth Areas: Located within a Planned Growth Area as defined in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan; AND
 High Quality Transit: Located within ½ a mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor; AND
 Transit-Supportive Project Density:
 Minimum of 35 units per acre for residential projects or components;  If located in a Planned Growth Area that has a maximum density below 35 units per acre, the maximum density allowed in the Planned Growth Area must be met; AND  Transportation Demand Management (TDM): If located in an area in which the per capita VMT is higher than the CEQA significance threshold, a robust TDM plan must be included; AND  Parking:
 No more than the minimum number of parking spaces required;  If located in Urban Villages or Downtown, the number of parking spaces must be adjusted to the lowest amount allowed; however, if the parking is shared, publicly available, and/or “unbundled”, the number of parking spaces can be up to the zoned minimum; AND  Active Transportation: Not negatively impact transit, bike or pedestrian infrastructure.

Restricted
Affordable
Residential
Projects or
Components
Type Screening Criteria
Small Infill
Projects
 Single-family detached housing of 15 units or less; OR  Single-family attached or multi-family housing of 25 units or less; OR  Office of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less; OR  Industrial of 30,000 square feet of gross floor area or less Local-Serving
Retail  100,000 square feet of total gross floor area or less without drive-through operations 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 13
Local Transportation Analysis Scope
A local transportation analysis (LTA) supplements the CEQA VMT analysis and identifies transportation and traffic operational issues that may arise due to a development project. The LTA includes an evaluation of the effects of the project on transportation, access, circulation, and related safety elements in the proximate area of the project.

Intersection Operations Analysis
The evaluation of a project’s impact on level of service at intersections under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose is no longer required. Per Senate Bill (SB) 743 and the updated CEQA Guidelines. (Section 15064.3) Nov 2017, beginning July 1, 2020 the use of intersection level of service as a metric for determining impacts of development growth on the transportation system will no longer be permitted. Therefore, the identification of level of service impacts in adjacent jurisdictions due to the development within San Jose, would not be consistent with the updated CEQA guidelines nor current City of San Jose transportation Policy.

However, since the VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) and City of Campbell have yet to adopt and implement guidelines and standards for the evaluation of transportation impacts using VMT, the effects of the proposed project traffic on the CMP-designated intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue within the City of Campbell and freeway segments in the vicinity of the project area were evaluated following the current peak-hour LOS standards and methodologies as outlined in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and City of Campbell traffic analysis guidelines.

However, the determination of project impacts per CEQA requirements is based solely on the VMT analysis.

The LTA includes the evaluation of weekday AM and PM peak hour operations at a limited number of intersections for the purpose of identifying operational issues (queuing, signal operations, and potential multi-modal issues) at intersections in the general vicinity of the project site.

Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for both the weekday AM and PM peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday. These are the peak commute hours during which most weekday traffic congestion occurs on the roadways in the study area.

Intersection operations conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
 Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at all study intersections were obtained from the CMP, previously completed traffic studies, and supplemented with new turning-movement counts.
 Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet completed developments.

The approved project traffic was provided by the City of San Jose in the form of the Approved Trips Inventory (ATI) and by the City of Campbell in the form of a list of projects.  Background Plus Project Conditions. Background plus project conditions reflect projected traffic volumes on the planned roadway network with completion of the project and approved developments. Background traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to background traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project.  Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes reflect projected traffic volumes on the planned roadway network with completion of the pending developments in the area as well as 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 14
the proposed project and approved developments. Lists of pending projects in the vicinity was provided by the Cities of San Jose and Campbell.

The LTA also includes a vehicle queuing analysis, an evaluation of potential project impacts on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking demand.

Report Organization
The remainder of this report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 describes existing transportation system including the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Chapter 3 describes the CEQA transportation analysis, including VMT analysis methodology, baseline and potential project VMT impacts, and potential cumulative transportation impacts. Chapter 4 describes the LTA including the method by which project traffic is estimated, intersection operations analysis methodology, any adverse intersection traffic effects caused by the project, intersection vehicle queuing analysis, site access and on-site circulation review, effects on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and parking. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of the transportation analysis. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 15

2. Existing Transportation Setting
This chapter describes the existing conditions of the transportation system within the study area of the project. It describes transportation facilities in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, transit services, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

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

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

I-280 is an eight-lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. It extends northwest to San Francisco and east to King Road in San Jose, at which point it makes a transition to I-680 to Oakland. North of I-880, I-280 has high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in both directions. Access to and from northbound I-280 to the site is provided via its interchange with Winchester Boulevard and via SR 17 to Hamilton Avenue.

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

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

Williams Road is a two-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It extends east from Moorpark Avenue to South Daniel Way, just east of Winchester Boulevard and is considered as “OnStreet Primary Bicycle Facility” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies. Williams Road provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 16
Payne Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It extends east from Saratoga Avenue to Almarida Drive, just east of Winchester Boulevard and is considered a “Local Connector Street” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies. Payne Avenue provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.

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

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

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

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

The locations of three pedestrian footbridge crossings over freeways in vicinity of the project site are listed below and shown in Figure 7.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 17
Figure 7
Existing Bicycle Facilities

880
280
Payne Ave
Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden AveW ni chester Blvd W ni chester Blvd
17 San Tomas Expwy San Tomas Expwy
Fireside Dr
Moorpark Ave
Monroe St Monroe St
Daniel Way Daniel Way
Downing Ave
Thornton Way Thornton Way
Darryl Dr Darryl Dr
Milton Ave Milton Ave
Baywood Ave Baywood Ave
Impala Dr
Westfield Ave
Tisch Way
Monroe St Monroe St
Cypress Ave Cypress Ave
Greenbriar Ave Greenbriar Ave
Central Ave Central Ave
= Class II Bike Lane
= Class III Bike Route
= Bike/Ped Freeway
Crossing
= Project Site Location
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 18
 SR 17 pedestrian footbridge connecting Westfield Avenue and Downing Avenue  I-280 pedestrian footbridge connecting Moorpark Avenue and Cypress Avenue  I-280 pedestrian footbridge connecting Moopark Avenue and Tisch Way Controlled crosswalks across Winchester Boulevard are provided near the project site at the signalized Williams Road and Payne Avenue intersections with Winchester Boulevard. Overall, the existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks provides good connectivity and provides pedestrians with safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the area.

Existing Transit Services
Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA. The VTA transit services are described below and shown on Figure 8.

VTA Bus Services
The project site is served directly by the following VTA bus routes.

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

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

Frequent Route 60 runs from the BART Station in Milpitas to Winchester Station via SJC Airport and operates from 5:00 AM to 12:30 AM on weekdays with 15-minute headways during commute periods.

Route 60 operates along Winchester Boulevard in the project area. The closest southbound and northbound bus stops to the project site are located approximately 500 feet south of the project site near the Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue intersection.

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

The closest LRT station is located approximately 1.4 miles from the project site at the interchange of SR 17 and Hamilton Avenue.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 19
Figure 8
Existing Transit Services
880
280
Payne Ave
Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave
Winchester Blvd Winchester Blvd
17 San Tomas Expwy San Tomas Expwy
Fireside Dr
Moorpark Ave
Thornton Way Thornton Way
Hamilton
LRT Station
Hamilton
LRT Station
= Local Route
= Frequent Route
= Express Route
X
XX
= Project Site Location
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
330 101
25 25
25 60
60 60
56 56
= Light Rail Transit (LRT)
= Bus Stop
X
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 20

3. CEQA Transportation Analysis
This chapter describes the CEQA transportation analysis, including the VMT analysis methodology and significance criteria, potential project impacts on VMT, mitigation measures recommended to reduce significant impacts, and an evaluation of consistency with the City of San Jose’s General Plan.

VMT Analysis Methodology
Per Council Policy 5-1, the effects of the proposed project on VMT was evaluated using the methodology outlined in the City’s Transportation Analysis Handbook. VMT is the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a day. VMT measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips with one end within the project. When the proposed project is relatively small and would not significantly alter existing traffic patterns, the City’s VMT evaluation tool is used to estimate the project VMT and determine whether the project would result in a significant VMT impact.

The VMT evaluation tool evaluates a list of selected VMT reduction measures that can be applied to a project to reduce the project VMT. There are four strategy tiers whose effects on VMT can be calculated with the VMT evaluation tool:

1. Project characteristics (e.g. density, diversity of uses, design, and affordability of housing) that encourage walking, biking and transit uses.

2. Multimodal network improvements that increase accessibility for transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians,

3. Parking measures that discourage personal motorized vehicle-trips, and

4. Transportation demand management (TDM) measures that provide incentives and services to encourage alternatives to personal motorized vehicle-trips.

The first three strategies – land use characteristics, multimodal network improvements, and parking – are physical design strategies that can be incorporated into the project design. TDM includes programmatic measures that aim to reduce VMT by decreasing personal motorized vehicle mode share and by encouraging more walking, biking, and riding transit. TDM measures should be enforced through annual trip monitoring to assess the project’s status in meeting the VMT reduction goals.

Based on the assessor’s parcel number (APN) of a project, the VMT evaluation tool identifies the 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 21
existing average VMT per employee for the project area. Based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction measures, the VMT evaluation tool calculates the project VMT. Projects located in areas where the existing VMT is greater than the established threshold are referred to as being in “high-VMT areas”. Projects in high-VMT areas are required to include a set of VMT reduction measures that would reduce the project VMT to the extent possible. Figure 9 shows the current VMT levels estimated by the City for workers in the immediate project area.

Based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction measures, the VMT evaluation tool calculates the project VMT. However, the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool is limited to the evaluation of four general land use categories: residential, office, industrial, and retail. Thus, the use of the VMT evaluation tool for the evaluation of land uses other than the four general land uses described above, such as the proposed hotel, requires the conversion of the proposed land use to an equivalent amount (based on trip generation characteristics) of residential units, office space, industrial space, or retail space.

Since the characteristics of the proposed hotel would have similar trip generating characteristics to retail space, the proposed hotel was converted into an equivalent amount of retail space based on trip generation estimates derived utilizing trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Based on the ITE daily trip rate for hotel (ITE Land Use Code 310), the proposed 119-room hotel is estimated to generate 1,455 daily trips, which is equivalent to the trips estimated to be generated by approximately 38,600 s.f. of retail space. Table 2 presents the retail equivalency calculation.

Table 2
Equivalent Retail Space
CEQA Transportation Analysis Exemption Criteria
The City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook identifies screening criteria that determines whether a CEQA transportation analysis would be required for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location.

As discussed previously, hotel rooms are converted to equivalent retail space to provide an estimate of similar trip-making characteristics (origin and destination of trips) for the purpose of VMT evaluation.

Based on the hotel rooms to retail space conversion, the proposed hotel project is expected to generate traffic equivalent to approximately 38,600 square feet of retail space.

Land Use Rate Trip
Hotel (ITE Land Use 310)1 119 Rooms 12.23 1,455
Shopping Center (ITE Land Use 820)1 Equivalent Retail Space2 = 38,600 Square Feet 37.75 1,455
Notes:
1 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2017 (Average Rates) 2 Rounded to the nearest 100 square feet.

Size
Daily
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 22
Figure 9 VMT per Employee Heat Map in Project Area
Winchester Blvd
Source: City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018) Williams Rd
Payne Avenue
Fireside Dr
Eden Ave
San Tomas Expwy17
NORTH
Not to Scale
Project Site
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 23
Cumulative (GP Consistency) Evaluation
Projects must demonstrate consistency with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan to address cumulative impacts. Consistency with the City’s General Plan is based on the project’s density, design, and conformance to the General Plan goals and policies. If a project is determined to be inconsistent with the General Plan, a cumulative impact analysis is required per the City’s Transportation Analysis Handbook.

The project site is located within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village, which is generally bounded by I-280 to the north, SR 17 to the east, Hamilton Avenue to the south, and San Tomas Expressway to the west (see Figure 1). Urban villages were developed as one of the major strategies of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Urban villages are defined as walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed use settings that provide both housing and jobs, thus supporting the policies and goals of the General Plan.

The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan identifies the following goals to improve traffic flow, alternative transportation options, and reduce neighborhood cut-through traffic.  Improve traffic flow through multimodal data collection and application and signal coordination and timing improvements.
 Reduce congestion from the road by encouraging off-peak travel as well as more travel through sustainable modes, including walking, biking, transit and ridesharing.  Support robust technology improvements, and appropriately accommodate new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, in ways that provide net benefit.  Improve transit options and connections to regional transit facilities by prioritizing transit and by upgrading existing bus stop facilities.
 Improve walkability and bikeability with better connections, wider walkways, improved over/undercrossings, shared bikeway in residential neighborhoods, protected or buffered bike lanes on major streets, and better bike parking.
 Limit cut-through traffic, speeding, and parking overflow in residential neighborhoods by slowing speeds and increasing cut-through travel-times in residential neighborhoods, and by providing enough parking to meet the needs of businesses and residents.  Improve wayfinding in ways that reinforce and enhance the identity of the Urban Village and its surrounding neighborhood.
 Remain consistent with the community’s top priorities for future designs of Winchester Boulevard, which are sufficient vehicular travel lanes and protected bike lanes.

The project is consistent with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village goals and policies for the following reasons:
 The project frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be consistent with planned streetscape design features of Grand Boulevards and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan.  The project frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be designed to accommodate the planned Winchester Boulevard Complete Street improvements including protected bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety features.
 The project site is adjacent to bus stops and bicycle lanes on Winchester Boulevard. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 24
Therefore, based on the project description, the proposed project would be consistent with the Urban Village Planning Concepts and the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Thus, the project would be considered as part of the cumulative solution to meet the General Plan’s long-range transportation goals and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 25

4. Local Transportation Analysis
This chapter describes the local transportation analysis including the method by which project traffic is estimated, intersection operations analysis for existing, background, and background plus project, any adverse effects on study intersections caused by the project, intersection vehicle queuing analysis, freeway segment capacity, site access and on-site circulation review, effects on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and parking.

Project Description
As proposed, the development would consist of the replacement of two single-family homes on-site with a 119-room hotel providing a total of 67 parking spaces. Access to and from the project site would be provided via one right-in/right-out driveway along Winchester Boulevard.

The project site is located within a designated Urban Village (Winchester Boulevard) per the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Urban villages are walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed-use settings that provide both housing and jobs, thus supporting the General Plan’s environmental goals.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel are estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Proposed Project Trips
Through empirical research, data have been collected that indicate the amount of traffic that can be expected to be generated by common land uses. Project trip generation was estimated by applying to the size and uses of the development the appropriate trip generation rates. The average trip generation rates for Hotel (Land Use 310) as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) were applied to the proposed number of hotel rooms to estimate the project trips.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 26
Trip Reductions
In accordance with San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Handbook (April 2018, Section 4.8, “Intersection Operations Analysis”), the project is eligible for adjustments and reductions from the baseline (gross) trip generation described above. Based on the 2018 San Jose guidelines, the project qualifies for a location-based adjustment. The location-based adjustment reflects the project’s vehicle mode share based on the place type in which the project is located per the San Jose Travel Demand Model. The project’s place type was obtained from the San Jose VMT Evaluation Tool. Based on the Tool, the project site is located within a designated urban area with low access to transit. Therefore, the baseline project trips were adjusted to reflect an urban low-transit mode share. Urban low-transit is characterized as an area with good accessibility, low vacancy, and middle-aged housing stock. Developments within urban low-transit areas have a vehicle mode share of 87%. Thus, a 13% reduction was applied to the trips generated by the proposed project.

Based on the ITE rates with trip reductions, the proposed hotel development would generate a total of 1,266 daily vehicle trips, with 64 trips (37 inbound and 27 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 75 trips (37 inbound and 38 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 3.

Existing Site Trips
Two homes are currently occupying the project site. Field observations revealed that the two homes are generating less than 10 trips during each of the peak hours. Therefore, the LTA utilized a conservative approach and did not take trip credit for the homes.

Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was developed based on existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway system and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern, with an emphasis on freeway access and project driveway location. Figure 10 shows the trip distribution pattern, and Figure 11 shows the net trip assignment of project traffic on the local transportation network.

Intersection Operations Methodology
This section presents the methods used to evaluate traffic operations at the study intersections. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, the applicable level of service standards, and the criteria defining adverse effects at the study intersections.

The intersection operations analysis is intended to quantify the operations of intersections and to identify potential negative effects due to the addition of project traffic. However, a potential adverse effect on a study intersection is not considered a CEQA impact metric.

Study Intersections
The study includes an analysis of AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions for four signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection. Intersections were selected for study if the project is expected to add 10 vehicle trips per hour per lane to a signalized intersection that meets one of the following criteria as outlined in the Transportation Analysis Handbook. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 27
Table 3 Project Trip Generation Estimates
ITE1 Pk-Hr Pk-Hr
Land Use Land Use Code Rate Trip Rate In Out In Out Total Rate In Out In Out TotalProposed Land Use Hotel #310 - Occupied Hotel Rooms 119 Rooms 12.23 1,455 0.62 58% 42% 43 31 74 0.73 49% 51% 43 44 87 Location-Based Reduction (Urban Low-Transit - 13%)2 -189 -6 -4 -10 -6 -6 -12 Total 1,266 37 27 64 37 38 75
Notes:
1 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2017 (Average Rates)2 The project site is located within an urban low-transit area based on the City of San Jose VMT Evaluation Tool (February 29, 2019). The trip reductions are based on the percent of mode share for all of the other modes of travel besides vehicle for retail uses.

Size
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily Split Trip Split Trip
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 P a g e | 2 8
Figure 10
Project Trip Distribution
880
280
Payne Ave Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
17 Williamsburg Dr
Fireside Dr David Ave
= Project Site Location
= Study Intersection
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
X
1 2
3 4
5 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 29
Figure 11
Project Trip Assignment
Project Trip Assignment 3-2-20
LEGEND:
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
= Project Site Location
= Study Intersection
XX(XX)
NORTH
Not to Scale
Williams Rd
Fireside Dr
Payne Ave
Hamilton Ave
Winchester
*
*
1 5
2 3
X
4 Williamsburg Dr
Project Driveway
Blvd
David Ave
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 30
 Within a ½-mile buffer from the project’s property line;  Outside a ½-mile buffer but within a one-mile buffer from the project AND currently operating at D or worse;
 Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) facility outside of the City’s Infill Opportunity Zones;
 Outside the City limits with the potential to be affected by the project, per the transportation standards of the corresponding external jurisdiction;
 With the potential to be affected by the project, per engineering judgement of Public Works.

The following study intersections are located between a one-half mile and one-mile radii from the project site and were selected based on the above criteria (see Figure 10).

1. Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road (San Jose)

2. Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue (San Jose)

3. Winchester Boulevard and David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive (San Jose)

4. Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue* (Campbell)

5. Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive (San Jose - Unsignalized) *Denotes CMP Intersection
The signalized intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue is located within the City of Campbell. However, it is also a CMP designated intersection and subject to CMP LOS standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the CMP, the Cities of San Jose and Campbell, and field observations. The following data were collected from these sources:
 existing traffic volumes
 existing lane configurations
 signal timing and phasing
 approved project trips
Lane Configurations
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were determined by observations in the field and are shown on Figure 12.

It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under background, background plus project, and cumulative plus project would be the same as the existing transportation network, with the following exceptions as part of the Winchester Boulevard Complete Street Improvements.

The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan identifies the improvement of Winchester Boulevard between Hamilton Avenue and I-280 to a complete street. Complete streets are roadways designed to safely accommodate many different users, including people who bike, people who walk, transit riders, motorists, and emergency vehicles. The planned streetscape design for Winchester Boulevard includes features of Grand Boulevards and Complete Streets as defined in San José’s General Plan and Complete Streets Design Guidelines (see Figure 13). The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan identifies the following complete street improvements along Winchester Boulevard:
 Protected bike lanes along both sides of Winchester Boulevard. The bike lanes will be physically separated from vehicle travel lanes.
 At least four vehicular travel lanes and two flex lanes for vehicle travel or parking. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 31
Figure 12
Existing Lane Configurations
880
280
= Project Site Location
= Study Intersection
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
X
1 2
3 4
5 Payne Ave
Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave
Winchester Blvd Winchester Blvd
17 San Tomas Expressway San Tomas Expressway
Williamsburg Dr
Fireside Dr
David Ave
= Stop-Controlled Intersection
= Signalized Intersection
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 32
Figure 13 Winchester Boulevard Complete Street Improvement

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSAN

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

CITY OF

S OSE J

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
5 TOTAL

LOSS OF PARKING SPACES (THIS SHEET ONLY)
58 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 33
Figure 13 (Continued) Winchester Boulevard Complete Street Improvement

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSAN

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

CITY OF

S OSE J

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
6 TOTAL

LOSS OF PARKING SPACES (THIS SHEET ONLY)
23 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 34
Figure 13 (Continued) Winchester Boulevard Complete Street Improvement

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSAN

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY

CITY OF

S OSE J

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
7 TOTAL

LOSS OF PARKING SPACES (THIS SHEET ONLY)
9 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 35
 Construction of a raised median with limited breaks.

This study conservatively assumes Winchester Boulevard would have four vehicular travel lanes (two lanes in each direction) during the AM and PM peak hours.

Traffic Volumes
Existing Conditions
Existing peak hour traffic volumes at all study intersections were obtained from the CMP, previously completed traffic studies, and supplemented with new turning-movement counts. The existing peakhour intersection volumes are shown on Figure 14. Intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix B. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes for all intersections and study scenarios are tabulated in Appendix D.

Future Conditions
Background peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing volumes the estimated traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments. The added traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments was obtained from the City of San Jose’s Approved Trips Inventory (ATI) database. Trips associated with approved projects in the City of Campbell were estimated based on a list provided by City of Campbell staff. The background traffic scenario predicts a realistic traffic condition that would occur as approved development is built. Background traffic volumes are shown in Figure 15. Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 16).

Traffic volumes under cumulative plus project conditions were estimated by adding to the background plus project traffic volumes the trips from proposed, but not yet approved (pending) development projects within the Cities of San Jose and Campbell. Pending project trips and/or pending project information was obtained from the Cities of San Jose and Campbell. The cumulative plus project traffic volumes at study intersections are shown Figure 17.

The approved and pending project information are included in Appendix C. The approved trips, proposed project trips, and traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix D.

Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The analysis methods are described below.

All study intersections were evaluated based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using the TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. TRAFFIX is also the CMP-designated intersection level of service methodology, thus, the City of San Jose employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The correlation between average control delay and level of service at signalized intersections is shown in Table 4.

Signalized study intersections, with the exception of the CMP-designated intersection at Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue, are subject to the City of San Jose level of service standards. The City of San Jose has established LOS D as the minimum acceptable intersection operations standard for all signalized intersections unless superseded by an Area Development Policy.

1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 36
Figure 14
Existing Traffic Volumes

880
280
Payne Ave
Williams Rd
Hamilton Ave
Eden Ave Eden Ave
Winchester Blvd Winchester Blvd
17 San Tomas Expressway San Tomas Expressway
Williamsburg Dr
Fireside Dr
David Ave
= Project Site Location
= Study Intersection
= City of San Jose
LEGEND:
= City of Campbell
= AM(PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
XX(XX)
X
1 2
3 4
5 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 37
Figure 15
Background Traffic Volumes

1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 40
Table 4
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay City of San Jose Definition of Adverse Intersection Operations Effects According to the City of San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Handbook 2018, an adverse effect on intersection operations occurs if for either peak hour:

1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under background conditions to an unacceptable level under background plus project conditions, or

2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) under background conditions and the addition of project trips cause both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by one percent (.01) or more.

The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average control delay for critical movements, i.e., the change in average control delay for critical movements are negative. In this case, the threshold is when the project increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more.

An adverse intersection operations effect by City of San Jose standards may be addressed by implementing measures that would restore intersection level of service to background conditions or better. The City recommends prioritizing improvements related to alternative transportation modes, Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. up to 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C
Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.1 to 55.0
Sources: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines , Santa Clara County Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, June 2003.

E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

Greater than 80.0
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 41
parking measures, and/or TDM measures. Improvements that increase vehicle capacity are secondary and must not have unacceptable effects on existing or planned transportation facilities. Unacceptable effects on existing or planned transportation facilities include the following:
 Inconsistent with the General Plan Transportation Network and Street Typologies;  Reduction of any physical dimension of a transportation facility below the minimum design standards per the San José Complete Streets Design Standards and Guidelines; OR  Substantial deterioration in the quality of existing or planned transportation facilities, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems and facilities, as determined by the Director of Transportation.

Conformance to the CMP Standard
The intersection at Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue is a CMP-designated intersection.

Based on CMP criteria, a project would fail to meet the CMP intersection standard if the additional project traffic caused one of the following during either peak hour:

1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS E or better under background conditions to an unacceptable LOS F under project conditions, or

2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS F under background conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four (4) or more seconds and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by one percent (.01) or more.

An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by.01 or more.

An adverse intersection effect by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection level of service to background conditions or better.

Intersection Operations Analysis Results
The intersection level of service analysis is summarized in Table 5.

Existing Intersection Operation Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against applicable Cities of San Jose and Campbell, and CMP operations standards. The results of the level of service analysis show all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, based on the Cities of San Jose and Campbell, and CMP intersection operations standards of LOS D and E, respectively. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E.

Observed Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 42
Table 5 Intersection Level of Service Results
Int. LOS Peak Count Avg. Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In Avg. # Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Hour Date Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C Delay LOS1 Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road San Jose D AM 11/19/19 32.9 C 35.9 D 35.9 D 0.0 0.003 36.0 D PM 11/19/19 34.7 C 35.5 D 35.6 D 0.3 0.007 36.0 D
2 Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue San Jose D AM 11/19/19 38.0 D 37.5 D 37.7 D 0.3 0.015 37.7 D PM 11/19/19 39.2 D 37.5 D 37.8 D 0.1 0.007 37.8 D
3 Winchester Boulevard and David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive San Jose D AM 11/19/19 19.7 B 18.9 B 18.8 B -0.1 0.006 18.8 B PM 11/19/19 22.9 C 20.6 C 20.5 C -0.1 0.006 20.7 C
4 Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue* CMP E AM 04/24/18 40.0 D 41.1 D 41.2 D 0.1 0.004 41.4 D PM 12/13/18 47.7 D 49.2 D 49.3 D 0.2 0.006 49.6 D
* Denotes CMP Intersection
Cumulative Plus
Existing Background Background Plus Project Project
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 43
Field observations revealed the following operational problem that may not be reflected in level of service calculations:

During the PM peak hour, the eastbound queue on Hamilton Avenue intermittently extended back from the SR 17 interchange to Winchester Boulevard resulting in the southbound Winchester Boulevard to eastbound Hamilton Avenue left-turn movement unable to proceed during its green phase. This only occured during a few signal cycles during the peak 15 minutes of the PM peak hour.

All other study intersections operate without any major operational problems.

At the intersections of Winchester Boulevard/David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive and Winchester Boulevard/Payne Avenue, the addition of background and/or project traffic causes the overall average intersection delays to improve slightly. This occurs when project trips are added to movements where the delay is lower than the overall intersection average.

I-280/Winchester Boulevard Interchange Area Transportation Development Policy The I-280/Winchester Boulevard interchange area Transportation Development Policy (TDP) provides for additional capacity in the immediate area of the I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard and I280/Winchester Boulevard interchanges. The TDP was completed for the purpose of managing existing traffic congestion in the I-880/Stevens Creek and I-280/Winchester interchange areas as well as provide additional traffic capacity to accommodate future development such as the proposed project.

The I-880/Stevens Creek and I-280/Winchester interchanges serve as the primary access points to regional freeway facilities in the project area. As such, the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Winchester Boulevard corridors that serve the I-880/Stevens Creek and I-280/Winchester interchanges currently experience traffic congestion during the peak commute hours. The corridors include two Protected Intersections that are currently and projected to continue to operate well below the City’s standard Level of Service Policy. There are no further vehicular capacity improvements available at the intersections.

The TDP provides partial funding, via a traffic impact fee imposed on proposed development, for the implementation of a new westbound off-ramp from I-280 to Winchester Boulevard to reduce traffic congestion at the I-880/Stevens Creek and Stevens Creek Boulevard corridors. The traffic fee is based on the estimated trips to be added to the new westbound off-ramp from I-280 to Winchester Boulevard during the PM peak hour by each individual development. It is estimated that the proposed project will result in the addition of four PM peak hour trips to the planned I-280 to Winchester Boulevard ramp.

Intersection Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements. The queuing analysis is presented for informational purposes only, since the Cities of San Jose and Campbell have not defined a policy related to queuing. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 44
P (x=n) = n e – (
n!
Where:

P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
average # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hour per lane/signal cycles per hour) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles for a particular left-turn movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the existing or planned available storage capacity for the left-turn movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections.

For signalized intersections, the 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles. Or, a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Thus, turn pocket storage designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage space would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time for a signalized movement. Vehicle queuing at unsignalized intersections are evaluated based on the delay experienced at the specific study turn movement.

A vehicle queuing analysis was conducted for high demand turn movements at the intersections of Winchester Boulevard/Payne Avenue and Winchester Boulevard/Fireside Drive (see Table 6). The analysis indicates that, with the addition of project traffic, the 95th percentile vehicle queues could be accommodated by the storage provided at all study locations. The queue length calculations are included in Appendix F.

Signal Warrant Analysis
The need for signalization of an unsignalized intersection is assessed based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD), Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2014. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether vehicular peak hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Intersections that meet the peak hour warrant are subject to further analysis before determining that a traffic signal is necessary.

Additional analysis may include unsignalized level of service analysis and/or operational analysis such as evaluating vehicle queuing and delay. Other options such as traffic control devices, signage, or geometric changes may be preferable based on existing field conditions.

A peak-hour traffic signal warrant check was conducted for the unsignalized intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive. The results indicate that the projected traffic volumes at the intersection would fall below the thresholds that warrant signalization under all study scenarios during the AM and PM peak hours. The traffic signal warrant calculations are included in Appendix G.

1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 45
Table 6
Queuing Analysis Summary
Measurement AM PM AM PM
Existing Conditions
Cycle Length/Control Delay (sec)1 126 140 8.4 10.9
Lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vph) 3888 8145
Volume (vphpl ) 38 88 81 45
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 3 7 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft./ln)2 75 175 25 25
Storage (ft./ ln.) 200 200 250 250
Adequate (Y/N) YES YES YES YES
Background Conditions
Cycle Length/Control Delay (sec)1 126 140 8.7 12.1
Lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vph) 3997 8145
Volume (vphpl ) 39 97 81 45
Avg. Queue (veh/ln.) 1.4 3.8 0.2 0.2
Avg. Queue1
(ft./ln) 34 94 5 4
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 3 7 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft./ln)2 75 175 25 25
Storage (ft./ ln.) 200 200 250 250
Adequate (Y/N) YES YES YES YES
Background Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length/Control Delay (sec)1 126 140 8.8 12.4
Lanes 1 1 1 1
Volume (vph) 50 108 94 64
Volume (vphpl ) 50 108 94 64
95th %. Queue (veh/ln.) 4 8 1 1
95th %. Queue (ft./ln)2 100 200 25 25
Storage (ft./ ln.) 200 200 250 250
Adequate (Y/N) YES YES YES YES
Notes:
1 Cycle length for signalized intersection and control delay for unsignalized intersection 2 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued
Winchester Boulevard and
Payne Avenue
Winchester Boulevard and
Fireside Drive
Southbound Left Northbound Left
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 46
Site Access and On-Site Circulation
The evaluation of site access and circulation is based on the site plan prepared by the Carpira Design Group. Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s access points with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. Onsite vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles.

Site Access
Vehicular access to the project site at its proposed driveway would be restricted to right-in/right-out turn movements only due to the existing median along Winchester Boulevard. Therefore, inbound project traffic from southbound Winchester Boulevard would be required to proceed past the project site and make a U-turn at the Payne Avenue intersection. Similarly, outbound project traffic that is bound for southbound Winchester Boulevard would be required to exit the project driveway and proceed north along Winchester Boulevard to make a U-turn at the Fireside Drive intersection. It is anticipated that this driveway would serve approximately 64 AM peak hour trips (37 inbound and 27 outbound) and 75 PM peak hour trips (37 inbound and 38 outbound). The estimated gross project trips at the site driveway are shown on Figure 18.

According to the City of San Jose municipal code, on-site two-way drive aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide and driveway widths should match the 26 feet wide drive aisles. The widths of the proposed driveway and on-site drive aisle are shown to be more than 26 feet, which satisfy the City’s driveway design requirement. The driveway has a clear throat of approximately 25 feet (measured between the driveway face of curb and the security check point), which can accommodate one vehicle.

Vehicle queuing issues are not expected to occur at the parking garage entrance based on the relatively low number of project trips at the entrance. There may be brief moments when vehicles exiting and entering the parking garage would block the sidewalk. However, it is anticipated that delays to pedestrians on the sidewalk would be relatively brief and it would generally not impact traffic operations on Winchester Boulevard.

Sight Distance
Adequate sight distance will be required at the project driveway along Winchester Boulevard. The project driveway should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and other vehicles traveling on Winchester Boulevard. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site.

Recommendation: Appropriate visible and/or audible warning signals should be provided at the garage entrance to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage.

Adequate sight distance (sight distance triangles) should be provided at the project driveway in accordance with the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Sight distance triangles should be measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway and locate sufficient gaps in traffic.

The minimum acceptable sight distance is often considered the AASHTO stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on the roadway speeds. Winchester Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph). The AASHTO stopping sight distance for a facility with a posted speed limit of 40 mph is 305 feet. Thus, a driver exiting the proposed project driveway on Winchester Boulevard must be able to see 305 feet to the south along Winchester Boulevard. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 47
Figure 18 Gross Project Trips at Site Driveways
LEGEND
XX(XX) = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 48
Based on the project site plan and observations in the field, vehicles exiting the project site driveway on Winchester Boulevard would be able to see approaching traffic on northbound Winchester Boulevard at least to Payne Avenue located approximately 450 feet to the south. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project driveway on Winchester Boulevard would meet the AASHTO minimum stopping sight distance standards.

On-Site Circulation
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of San Jose Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The parking garage entrance on Winchester Boulevard would lead straight to the ramp down to the basement level. The parking garage follows a standard 90-degree parking layout. The parking aisles are more than 26 feet wide, which meets the City’s standard for 90-degree parking. The widths of the garage entrance and the ramp are also more than 26 feet as shown on the site plan, which meets the City’s standard. The dimensions of the regular parking spaces are 8.6 feet by 17 feet, which do not meet the minimum City standards of 8.5 feet by 18 feet for full-size car spaces.

Recommendation: The proposed parking space dimensions, while not an unusual design, do not meet City standards and should be reviewed by City staff prior to final design. Upon entering the garage at ground floor parking level, vehicles would turn left onto a ramp that leads to the lower basement level of the garage. Overall, the parking layout would provide for adequate vehicular circulation within the parking garage.

A dead-end aisle will exist at the end of the drive aisle on the basement parking level of the garage.

Dead end aisles are undesirable because drivers will enter the aisle, and upon discovering that there is no available parking, must back out or conduct three-point turns. In areas where parking spaces are designated for specific individuals, dead end aisles are less problematic.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the parking spaces located at the end of the dead-end aisle be dedicated for employee use.

Bike and Pedestrian On-Site Circulation
Pedestrian access to the project site is provided at multiple locations along the frontage on Winchester Boulevard and pathways adjacent to the north and south property lines. On Winchester Boulevard project frontage, pedestrian access is provided to the main entrance connected to the proposed 20-foot sidewalk on Winchester Boulevard. Pathways connected to the sidewalks on Winchester Boulevard along the north and south perimeters of the project site provide pedestrian access via entry doors to the building ground level and stairwells to upper levels of the building. Pedestrian circulation within the site appears to provide adequate connectivity between vehicle parking, off-site pedestrian facilities, and onsite amenities. There are three stairwells and six elevators shown on the site plan, each reasonably evenly distributed throughout the site. One of the stairwells and one of the elevators provide access to the basement parking level.

Truck Access
The site plan does not indicate that a loading space will be provided on-site.

Recommendation: In lieu of providing off-street loading spaces, it is recommended that the project applicant work with City staff to determine the feasibility of providing a public loading zone on Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage.

A designated trash collection area is shown on the ground floor level adjacent to the north pathway in the exterior area of the building. Because garbage trucks would not be able to access near the trash collection area, trash bins would have to be wheeled out to the trash staging area along the Winchester 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 49
Boulevard project frontage where garbage trucks would perform their operations outside of the development at the curb.

Guest and Valet Drop-off/Pick-up Zone Operations
The project proposes to provide an on-street drop-off and pick-up zone along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard, north of the site driveway. There is currently no on-street parking provided along the project frontage. In addition, the planned complete street improvement of Winchester Boulevard would provide two travel lanes with a Class IV bike lane and no on-street parking along the project frontage. Also, since the guest/valet drop-off/pick-up area will be located on a public street, the area will not be restricted to the use of only the hotel and may not be available for guest/valet use at all times.

Therefore, the City may not be supportive of the loading zone along Winchester Boulevard and may require that the loading area be moved on-site. The project should work with the City to determine the feasibility of the proposed passenger loading zone on Winchester Boulevard.

Based on the estimated trip generation, a maximum of 37 inbound trips would need to be served at the proposed guest and valet drop-off/pick-up zone along Winchester Boulevard during the PM peak-hour, or approximately one vehicle every 1.5 minutes. The number of vehicles that can be served at the valet drop-off/pick-up zone will depend on the proposed valet parking operations. However, it is recommended that a minimum of two to three valet staff be present during the peak arrival/departure periods for the hotel. In addition, vehicles should not be retrieved in advance of guests being present at the valet area. Given the limited storage space for valet operations along Winchester Boulevard, the valet area should not be used for transportation network companies (TMCs) such as Uber, Lyft, etc. while waiting for customers.

The site plan does not indicate on-site designated parking spaces for guest check-in or valet dropoff/pick-up areas. The site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate the storing of at least two vehicles.

Twenty-four two car mechanical parking lifts will be provided within the basement parking level. The parking lifts would extend outward onto the drive aisle while parking or retrieving a vehicle from the upper level of the lift. Parking and retrieving vehicles from the mechanical parking lifts would momentarily interfere with vehicular circulation as most of the drive aisle would be blocked by the extended lift. However, all parking operations will be operated by valets who will be familiar with the operations of stacker parking lifts. The project should work with City staff to ensure that specific requirements for the valet operations and mechanical lifts are met.

Recommended Site Access and On-Site Circulation Improvements Winchester Complete Street Improvements. The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan identifies the following complete street improvements along Winchester Boulevard:
 Protected bike lanes along both sides of Winchester Boulevard. The bike lanes will be physically separated from vehicle travel lanes.
 At least four vehicular travel lanes and two flex lanes for vehicle travel or parking.  Construction of a raised median with limited breaks.
 In order to close the sidewalk gap on the east side of Winchester Boulevard, it is recommended that the City staff work with the owner of the adjacent property to the north to install a sidewalk per City design standards
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 50
Adhere to City of San Jose Design Standards and Guidelines. The design of the project site, including but not limited to driveways, sidewalks, corner radii, street width, parking dimensions, and signage, should adhere to City of San Jose design standards and guidelines. Specific site access and on-site circulation recommended improvements are summarized below:
 In addition to providing a 20-foot sidewalk along the project frontage, the site driveway design must ensure the safe travel of pedestrians and bicyclists along Winchester Boulevard.

Appropriate visible and/or audible warning signals should be provided at the garage entrance to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage.  The proposed parking space dimensions, while not an unusual design, do not meet City standards and show be reviewed by City staff prior to final design.  It is recommended that the parking spaces located at the end of the dead-end aisle be dedicated for employee use.
 In lieu of providing off-street loading spaces, it is recommended that the project applicant work with City staff to determine the feasibility of providing a public loading zone on Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage.
 The City may not be supportive of the proposed loading zone along Winchester Boulevard and may require that the loading area be moved on-site. The project should work with the City to determine the feasibility of the proposed passenger loading zone on Winchester Boulevard.  The site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate the storing of at least two vehicles.

Bicycle Parking
According to the City’s Bicycle Parking Standards (Chapter 20.90, Table 20-210), the project is required to provide bicycle parking for the project at a rate of one bicycle parking space plus one space per 10 guest rooms. This equates to a total requirement of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The project site plan indicates that two bicycle storage areas will be located within the basement level of the parking garage.

The storage areas are shown to provide space for a total of 27 bicycles. Therefore, the proposed 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 51
bicycle parking on-site will exceed the City’s requirements and encourage the use of non-auto modes of travel and minimize the demand for on-site parking.

Surrounding On-Street Parking
The project site is located just outside the perimeter of the Cadillac Residential Parking Program (RPP) zone, where a permit is required to use on-street parking from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM every day except on holidays. In order to obtain a parking permit, the applicant must live in or own a residential property or operate a business in a parking permit zone. Generally, this means that the residence or business must be located on the same side of the street and block face where permit parking signs are posted.

The locations of on-street parking, where an RRP permit is required, are shown on Figure 19.

With the implementation of the required TDM plan, the project will provide adequate parking spaces onsite to satisfy its parking demand and will not have an effect on the Cadillac RPP.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Analysis
Existing sidewalks along Winchester Boulevard provide a pedestrian connection between the project site and pedestrian destinations in the project vicinity. Pedestrian traffic primarily would consist of patrons and employees of the proposed project walking to and from surrounding retail establishments, as well as bus stops on Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue. Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at the signalized intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue. All of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site have sidewalks on both sides of the street, except a short segment on the east side of Winchester Boulevard along the frontages of the project site and one adjacent property to the north. The project will install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. However, in order to close the sidewalk gap on the east side of Winchester Boulevard, it is recommended that the City staff work with the owner of the adjacent property to the north to install a sidewalk per City design standards.

The bikeways within the vicinity of the project site would remain unchanged under project conditions.

Currently, no bike facilities exist on Winchester Boulevard between Payne Avenue and Moorpark Avenue that would provide connections to other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. The San Jose Bike Plan 2020 and Envision 2040 General Plan, as described below, identify planned improvements to the bicycle network within the City and provide policies and goals that are intended to promote and encourage the use of multi-modal travel options and reduce the identified project impacts to the roadway system. The planned improvements to the bicycle network will provide the project site with improved connections to surrounding pedestrian/bike and transit facilities and a balanced transportation system as outlined in the Envision 2040 General Plan goals and policies.

The project site is served directly by VTA local bus line 60, which operates along Winchester Boulevard. The southbound and northbound bus stops for line 60 are located at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue. It can be assumed that some patrons and employees of the proposed hotel would utilize the existing transit services. Applying an estimated three percent transit mode share, which is probably the highest that could be expected for the project, equates to approximately two new transit riders during the AM peak hour and three new transit riders during the PM peak hour. Assuming the existing transit service would remain unchanged with line 60 providing service with 15-20-minute headways during the peak commute periods at bus stops along Winchester Boulevard, the estimated number of new transit riders using the bus stops located near the project site would equate to no more than three new riders per bus during the peak hours. VTA operations reports indicate that the 60-bus line as well as several other bus lines in the project area serve less than ideal ridership. Therefore, the new riders due to the proposed project could be accommodated by the current 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 52
Figure 19 Cadillac Residential Parking Program
= Cadillac RPP Permit Required for Parking from 10PM to 6AM Everyday, except for Holidays= Project Site Location LEGEND:

Source: City of San Jose
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 53
available capacity of the bus service in the study area and improvement of the existing transit service would not be necessary with the project.

Public Transit/Pedestrian/Bike Improvements
The proposed project site is located within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Boundary and fronts Winchester Boulevard, which has been designated as a Grand Boulevard by the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Sites within an Urban Village and located along a Grand Boulevard must incorporate additional urban design and architectural elements that will facilitate a building with pedestrian orientated design and activate the pedestrian public right-of-way.

The Envision 2040 General Plan identifies goals and policies that are dedicated to the enhancement of the transportation infrastructure, including public transit and pedestrian/bike facilities. The Transportation Policies contained in the General Plan create incentives for non-auto modes of travel while reducing the use of single-occupant automobile travel as generally described below:
 Through the entitlement process for new development, fund needed transportation improvements for all transportation modes, giving first consideration to improvement of bicycling walking, and transit facilities.
 Give priority to the funding of multimodal projects to provide the most benefit to all users of the transportation system.
 Encourage the use of non-automobile travel modes to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)  Consider the impact on the overall transportation system when evaluating the impacts of new developments.
 Increase substantially the proportion of travel modes other than single-occupant vehicles.

The planned improvements discussed below are intended to provide for a balanced transportation system as outlined in the Envision 2040 General Plan goals and policies. However, the full implementation of the improvements are beyond the means of the proposed project given that they may require right-of-way from adjacent properties. The project could be required to make a fair-share contribution towards the cost of the improvements since the identified improvements would be of benefit to the project.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Improvements
The Envision 2040 General Plan identifies the following goals in regard to bicycling and pedestrians:
 Provide a continuous pedestrian and bicycle system to enhance connectivity throughout the City by completing missing segments.
 Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as improvements for vehicular circulation.
 Give priority to pedestrian improvement projects that improve pedestrian safety, improve pedestrian access to and within the Urban Villages and other growth areas.

Class II bike lanes are planned for:
 Winchester Boulevard, between Payne Avenue and Moorpark Avenue  Cypress Avenue, between Williams Road and Moorpark Avenue 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 54
Class III bike routes are planned for:
 Payne Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and Greenbriar Avenue  Greenbriar Avenue, between Payne Avenue and Westfield Avenue  Westfield Avenue, between Greenbriar Avenue and Daniel Way Transit Facility Improvements
The Envision 2040 General Plan identifies the following goals in regard to public transit:
 Pursue development of BRT, bus, shuttle, and fixed guideway services on designated streets and connections to major destinations.
 Ensure that roadways designated as Grand Boulevards adequately accommodate transit vehicle circulation and transit stops. Prioritize bus mobility along Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Winchester Boulevard between Moorpark Avenue and Impala Drive has been designated as a Grand Boulevard within the Envision 2040 General Plan. Grand Boulevards are intended to serve as major transportation corridors with priority given to public transit. Given that the project fronts Winchester Boulevard, the project shall be required to implement the following Grand Boulevard design principles:
 Provide a minimum 15 feet sidewalk width along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard  Minimize driveway cuts to minimize transit delay
 Provide enhanced shelters for transit services
In addition, as a Grand Boulevard it is envisioned that Winchester Boulevard could potentially be included in the VTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System. However, there are no plans at this time for a BRT line on Winchester Boulevard.

Freeway Segment Evaluation
The City is still required to conform to the requirements of the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) which establishes a uniform program for evaluating the transportation impacts of land use decisions on the designated CMP Roadway System. The VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) has yet to adopt and implement guidelines and standards for the evaluation of the CMP roadway system using VMT. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project on freeway segments in the vicinity of the project area following the current methodologies as outlined in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, was completed. However, this analysis is presented for informational purposes only.

Per CMP technical guidelines, freeway segment level of service analysis shall be conducted on all segments to which the project is projected to add one percent or more to the segment capacity. Since the project is not projected to add one percent or higher to any freeway segments in the area, freeway analysis for the CMP was not required. The percentage of traffic projected to be added by the project to freeway segments in the project area is summarized in Table 7. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 55
Table 7 Freeway Segment Capacity
Peak # of Capacity # of Capacity % of % of
# Freeway Segment Direction Hour Lanes (vph) Lanes (vph) Volume Capacity Volume Capacity1 SR 17 from San Tomas Expressway/Camden Avenue to Hamilton Avenue NB AM 3 6,900 -- -- 4 0.06 -- -- NB PM 3 6,900 -- -- 4 0.06 -- --
2 SR 17 from Hamilton Avenue to I-280 NB AM 3 6,900 -- -- 6 0.09 -- -- NB PM 3 6,900 -- -- 9 0.13 -- --
3 I-880 from I-280 to Stevens Creek Boulevard NB AM 3 6,900 -- -- 5 0.07 -- -- NB PM 3 6,900 -- -- 8 0.12 -- --
4 I-280 from Saratoga Avenue to Winchester Boulevard EB AM 3 6,900 1 1,650 4 0.06 0 0.00 EB PM 3 6,900 1 1,650 3 0.04 1 0.06
5 I-280 from Winchester Boulevard to I-880 EB AM 3 6,900 1 1,650 0 0.00 0 0.00 EB PM 3 6,900 1 1,650 0 0.00 0 0.00
6 I-280 from I-880 to Meridian Avenue EB AM 3 6,900 1 1,650 4 0.06 1 0.06 EB PM 3 6,900 1 1,650 5 0.07 3 0.18
7 I-280 from Meridian Avenue to I-880 WB AM 3 6,900 1 1,650 5 0.07 2 0.12 WB PM 3 6,900 1 1,650 6 0.09 1 0.06
8 I-280 from I-880 to Winchester Boulevard WB AM 3 6,900 1 1,650 0 0.00 0 0.00 WB PM 3 6,900 1 1,650 0 0.00 0 0.00
9 I-280 from Winchester Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue WB AM 3 6,900 1 1,650 2 0.03 1 0.06 WB PM 3 6,900 1 1,650 3 0.04 1 0.06
10 I-880 from Stevens Creek Boulevard to I-280 SB AM 3 6,900 -- -- 7 0.10 -- -- SB PM 3 6,900 -- -- 7 0.10 -- --
11 SR 17 from I-280 to Hamilton Avenue SB AM 3 6,900 -- -- 11 0.16 -- -- SB PM 3 6,900 -- -- 11 0.16 -- --
12 SR 17 from Hamilton Avenue to San Tomas Expressway/Camden Avenue SB AM 3 6,900 -- -- 3 0.04 -- -- SB PM 3 6,900 -- -- 4 0.06 -- --
Existing Capacity Project Trips
Mixed-Flow Lane HOV Lane Mixed-Flow Lane HOV Lane
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 56

5. Conclusions
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Cities of San Jose and Campbell, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of Santa Clara County, and by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The study included the analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for four signalized intersections and one unsignalized intersection.

Project impacts on other transportation facilities, such as bicycle facilities and transit service, were determined on the basis of engineering judgment.

CEQA VMT Analysis
CEQA Transportation Analysis Exemption Criteria
The City of San Jose Transportation Analysis Handbook identifies screening criteria that determines whether a CEQA transportation analysis would be required for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required.

The project site is located within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village. Urban villages are defined as walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed use settings that provide both housing and jobs, thus 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 57
supporting the policies and goals of the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village goals and policies for the following reasons:
 The project frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be consistent with planned streetscape design features of Grand Boulevards and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan.  The project frontage along Winchester Boulevard will be designed to accommodate the planned Winchester Boulevard Complete Street improvements including protected bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, and other pedestrian safety features.
 The project site is adjacent to bus stops and bicycle lanes on Winchester Boulevard.

Trip Generation
After applying the ITE trip rates, and appropriate trip reductions, it is estimated that the project would generate an additional 1,455 daily vehicle trips, with 64 trips (37 inbound and 27 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 75 trips (37 inbound and 38 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour.

Site Access and On-Site Circulation
Site access was evaluated to determine the adequacy of the site’s access points with regard to the following: traffic volume, delays, vehicle queues, geometric design, and corner sight distance. On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and transportation planning principles.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 58
Recommended Site Access and On-Site Circulation Improvements Winchester Complete Street Improvements. The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan identifies the following complete street improvements along Winchester Boulevard:
 Protected bike lanes along both sides of Winchester Boulevard. The bike lanes will be physically separated from vehicle travel lanes.
 At least four vehicular travel lanes and two flex lanes for vehicle travel or parking.  Construction of a raised median with limited breaks.
 In order to close the sidewalk gap on the east side of Winchester Boulevard, it is recommended that the City staff work with the owner of the adjacent property to the north to install a sidewalk per City design standards.

Appropriate visible and/or audible warning signals should be provided at the garage entrance to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage.  The proposed parking space dimensions, while not an unusual design, do not meet City standards and should be reviewed by City staff prior to final design.  It is recommended that the parking spaces located at the end of the dead-end aisle be dedicated for employee use.
 In lieu of providing off-street loading spaces, it is recommended that the project applicant work with City staff to determine the feasibility of providing a public loading zone on Winchester Boulevard along the project frontage.
 The City may not be supportive of the proposed loading zone along Winchester Boulevard and may require that the loading area be moved on-site. The project should work with the City to determine the feasibility of the proposed passenger loading zone on Winchester Boulevard.  The site should provide time restricted parking spaces on-site for guest check-in and a valet drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate the storing of at least two vehicles.

In accordance with Sections 20.70.330 and 20.90.220 of the San Jose Code of Ordinances, which allows up to a 50% parking reduction, the additional 32 percent reduction could be allowed with the 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 59
implementation and maintenance of a TDM plan. A separate TDM plan for the proposed project that meets the requirements set forth in the City’s Zoning Code will be prepared by Hexagon. The project will be required to submit and have approved by the City its TDM program.

Bicycle Facilities
The bikeways within the vicinity of the project site would remain unchanged under project conditions.

Currently, no bike facilities exist on Winchester Boulevard between Payne Avenue and Moorpark Avenue that would provide connections to other bicycle facilities in the project vicinity.

Class II bike lanes are planned for:
 Winchester Boulevard, between Payne Avenue and Moorpark Avenue  Cypress Avenue, between Williams Road and Moorpark Avenue Class III bike routes are planned for:
 Payne Avenue, between Winchester Boulevard and Greenbriar Avenue  Greenbriar Avenue, between Payne Avenue and Westfield Avenue  Westfield Avenue, between Greenbriar Avenue and Daniel Way Transit Services
The project site is adequately served by the existing VTA transit services. The nearest bus stop to the project site are located at the Winchester Boulevard/Payne Avenue intersection approximately 400 feet from the project site and are served by Route 60. The new transit trips generated by the project are not expected to create demand in excess of the transit service that is currently provided. 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis June 18, 2020 Page | 60
As a Grand Boulevard it is envisioned that Winchester Boulevard could potentially be included in the VTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System. However, there are no plans at this time for a BRT line on Winchester Boulevard.
1212 South Winchester Hotel Development TA
Technical Appendices
June 18, 2020
Appendix A
San Jose VMT Evaluation Tool Output Sheet

CITY OF SAN JOSE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED EVALUATION TOOL SUMMARY REPORT PROJECT:

Name: Winchester Hotel Tool Version:

Location: 1212-1224 Winchester Boulevard, San Jose, CA Date:

Parcel: Parcel Type: Urban Low Transit
Proposed Parking Spaces Bicycles: 0
LAND USE:

Residential: Percent of All Residential Units
Single Family 0 DU Extremely Low Income ( < 30% MFI) 0 % Affordable Multi Family 0 DU Very Low Income ( > 30% MFI, < 50% MFI) 0 % Affordable Subtotal 0 DU Low Income ( > 50% MFI, < 80% MFI) 0 % Affordable Office: 0 KSF
Retail: 36.6 KSF
Industrial: 0 KSF

VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Tier 1 - Project Characteristics
Increase Residential Density
Existing Density (DU/Residential Acres in half-mile buffer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 With Project Density (DU/Residential Acres in half-mile buffer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Increase Development Diversity
Existing Activity Mix Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.48 With Project Activity Mix Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.49 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate
Extremely Low Income BMR units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 % Very Low Income BMR units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% Low Income BMR units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 % Increase Employment Density
Existing Density (Jobs/Commercial Acres in half-mile buffer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 With Project Density (Jobs/Commercial Acres in half-mile buffer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Tier 2 - Multimodal Infrastructure
Tier 3 - Parking
Tier 4 - TDM Programs
27917020
78 2/29/2019
12/16/2019
Vehicles:

Page 1 of 2 ends

Appendix B
Traffic Counts

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

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

0.90 N
S
EW

0.93 0.67

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

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

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

0.94 N
S
EW

0.97 0.84

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

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

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

0.96 N
S
EW

0.93 0.94

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

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

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

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

0.95 N
S
EW

0.88 0.86

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

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

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

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

0.95 N
S
EW

0.89 0.91

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

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

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

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

0.91 N
S
EW

0.84 0.90

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

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

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

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

0.94 N
S
W E

0.91 0.93

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

HAMILTON AVE

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

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

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

0.95 N
S
EW

0.80 0.71

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

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

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

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

0.94 N
S
EW

0.92 0.89

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

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

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

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

0.85 0.73

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

CADILLAC DR

COLONIAL WAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

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

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

0.97 N
S
W E

0.93 0.94

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

CADILLAC DR

COLONIAL WAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

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

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

0.91 N
S
W E

0.93 0.25

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

IMPALA DR

DRIVEWAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

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

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

0.98 N
S
W E

0.90 0.25

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

IMPALA DR

DRIVEWAY

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

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

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

0.91 N
S
W E

0.91 0.81

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

ROSEMARY LN

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

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

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

0.94 N
S
W E

0.87 0.52

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

ROSEMARY LN

WINCHESTER BLVD

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

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

PROJECT TRIPS
Intersection of :

Traffix Node Number :

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

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

SANTANA ROW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Split Signal=Split

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Protect Signal=Protect

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

Signal=Stop Signal=Stop

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

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

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

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

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

SBL SBL SBL

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

0.2645 0.2645 0 0.2554 0.2554 0 0.1738 0.1738 0

0.3518 0.6162 1 0.3486 0.6040 1 0.3041 0.4779 1

0.2339 0.8501 2 0.2379 0.8419 2 0.2661 0.7440 2

0.1037 0.9539 3 0.1083 0.9501 3 0.1552 0.8992 3

0.0345 0.9883 4 0.0369 0.9871 4 0.0679 0.9671 4

0.0092 0.9975 5 0.0101 0.9972 5 0.0238 0.9909 5

0.0020 0.9995 6 0.0023 0.9995 6 0.0069 0.9978 6

0.0004 0.9999 7 0.0004 0.9999 7 0.0017 0.9995 7

0.0001 1.0000 8 0.0001 1.0000 8 0.0004 0.9999 8

0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0001 1.0000 9

0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10

0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11

0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

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

SBL SBL SBL

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

0.0326 0.0326 0 0.0230 0.0230 0 0.0150 0.0150 0

0.1117 0.1443 1 0.0868 0.1098 1 0.0630 0.0780 1

0.1911 0.3355 2 0.1636 0.2734 2 0.1323 0.2102 2

0.2180 0.5535 3 0.2058 0.4792 3 0.1852 0.3954 3

0.1865 0.7400 4 0.1941 0.6732 4 0.1944 0.5898 4

0.1277 0.8677 5 0.1464 0.8196 5 0.1633 0.7531 5

0.0728 0.9405 6 0.0920 0.9117 6 0.1143 0.8675 6

0.0356 0.9761 7 0.0496 0.9613 7 0.0686 0.9361 7

0.0152 0.9914 8 0.0234 0.9847 8 0.0360 0.9721 8

0.0058 0.9972 9 0.0098 0.9945 9 0.0168 0.9889 9

0.0020 0.9991 10 0.0037 0.9982 10 0.0071 0.9959 10

0.0006 0.9998 11 0.0013 0.9994 11 0.0027 0.9986 11

0.0002 0.9999 12 0.0004 0.9998 12 0.0009 0.9996 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0001 1.0000 13 0.0003 0.9999 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0001 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

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

NBL NBL NBL

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

0.8278 0.8278 0 0.8222 0.8222 0 0.7947 0.7947 0

0.1565 0.9842 1 0.1609 0.9832 1 0.1826 0.9773 1

0.0148 0.9990 2 0.0158 0.9989 2 0.0210 0.9983 2

0.0009 1.0000 3 0.0010 0.9999 3 0.0016 0.9999 3

0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0001 1.0000 4 0.0001 1.0000 4

0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5

0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6

0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7

0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8

0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9

0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10

0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11

0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

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

NBL NBL NBL

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

0.8726 0.8726 0 0.8596 0.8596 0 0.8022 0.8022 0

0.1189 0.9915 1 0.1300 0.9897 1 0.1768 0.9790 1

0.0081 0.9996 2 0.0098 0.9995 2 0.0195 0.9985 2

0.0004 1.0000 3 0.0005 1.0000 3 0.0014 0.9999 3

0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0000 1.0000 4 0.0001 1.0000 4

0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5 0.0000 1.0000 5

0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6 0.0000 1.0000 6

0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7 0.0000 1.0000 7

0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8 0.0000 1.0000 8

0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9 0.0000 1.0000 9

0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10 0.0000 1.0000 10

0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11 0.0000 1.0000 11

0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12 0.0000 1.0000 12

0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13 0.0000 1.0000 13

0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14 0.0000 1.0000 14

0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15 0.0000 1.0000 15

0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16 0.0000 1.0000 16

0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17 0.0000 1.0000 17

0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18 0.0000 1.0000 18

0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19 0.0000 1.0000 19

0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20 0.0000 1.0000 20

0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21 0.0000 1.0000 21

0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22 0.0000 1.0000 22

0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23 0.0000 1.0000 23

0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24 0.0000 1.0000 24

0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25 0.0000 1.0000 25

0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26 0.0000 1.0000 26

0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27 0.0000 1.0000 27

0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28 0.0000 1.0000 28

0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29 0.0000 1.0000 29

0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30 0.0000 1.0000 30

0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31 0.0000 1.0000 31

0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32 0.0000 1.0000 32

0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33 0.0000 1.0000 33

0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34 0.0000 1.0000 34

0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35 0.0000 1.0000 35

0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36 0.0000 1.0000 36

0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37 0.0000 1.0000 37

0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38 0.0000 1.0000 38

0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39 0.0000 1.0000 39

0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40 0.0000 1.0000 40

0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41 0.0000 1.0000 41

0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42 0.0000 1.0000 42

0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43 0.0000 1.0000 43

0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44 0.0000 1.0000 44

0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45 0.0000 1.0000 45

0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46 0.0000 1.0000 46

0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47 0.0000 1.0000 47

0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48 0.0000 1.0000 48

0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49 0.0000 1.0000 49

0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50 0.0000 1.0000 50

0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51 0.0000 1.0000 51

0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52 0.0000 1.0000 52

0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53 0.0000 1.0000 53

0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54 0.0000 1.0000 54

0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55 0.0000 1.0000 55

0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56 0.0000 1.0000 56

0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57 0.0000 1.0000 57

0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58 0.0000 1.0000 58

0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59 0.0000 1.0000 59

0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60 0.0000 1.0000 60

0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61 0.0000 1.0000 61

0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62 0.0000 1.0000 62

0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63 0.0000 1.0000 63

0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64 0.0000 1.0000 64

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

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

MINOR STREET - HIGHER-VOLUME APPROACH (VPH)

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

APPENDIX I

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

Visrael 26, LLC.

January 27, 2021
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX J

GHG REDUCTION CHECKLIST

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT
Purpose of the Compliance Checklist
In 2020, the City adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (GHGRS) that outlines the actions the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions for the interim target year 2030. The purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist (Checklist) is to:
▪ Implement GHG reduction strategies from the 2030 GHGRS to new development projects. ▪ Provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The 2030 GHGRS presents the City’s comprehensive path to reduce GHG emissions to achieve the 2030 reduction target, based on SB 32, BAAQMD, and OPR. Additionally, the 2030 GHGRS leverages other important City plans and policies; including the General Plan, Climate Smart San José, and the City Municipal Code in identifying reductions strategies that achieve the City’s target. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows for public agencies to analyze and mitigate GHG emissions as part of a larger plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the City of San José’s 2030 GHGRS represents San José’s qualified climate action plan in compliance with CEQA.

As described in the 2030 GHGRS, these GHG reductions will occur through a combination of City initiatives in various plans and policies and will provide reductions from both existing and new developments. This Compliance Checklist specifically applies to proposed discretionary projects that require environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the Checklist is a critical implementation tool in the City’s overall strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Implementation of applicable reduction actions in new development projects will help the City achieve incremental reductions toward its target.

Per the 2030 GHGRS, the City will monitor strategy implementation and make updates, as necessary, to maintain an appropriate trajectory to the 2030 GHG target.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of the GHGRS.

City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
2 Instructions for Compliance Checklist
Applicants shall complete the following sections to demonstrate conformance with the City of San José 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy for the proposed project. All projects must complete Section A. General Plan Policy Conformance and Section B. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies. Projects that propose alternative GHG mitigation measures must also complete Section C. Alternative Project Measures and Additional GHG Reductions.

A. General Plan Policy Compliance
Projects need to demonstrate consistency with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan’s relevant policies for Land Use & Design, Transportation, Green Building, and Water Conservation, enumerated in Table A. All applicants shall complete the following steps.

1. Complete Table A, Item #1 to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Diagram.

2. Complete Table A, Items #2 through #4 to demonstrate the project’s consistency with General Plan policies1related to green building; pedestrian, bicycle & transit site design; and water conservation and urban forestry, as applicable. For each policy listed, mark the relevant yes/no check boxes to indicate project consistency, and provide a qualitative description of how the policy is implemented in the proposed project or why the policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Qualitative descriptions can be included in Table A or provided as separate attachments. This explanation will provide the basis for analysis in the CEQA document.

B. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies
Table B identifies the GHGRS strategies and recommended consistency options. Projects need to demonstrate consistency with the GHGRS reduction strategies listed in Table B or document why the strategies are not applicable or are infeasible. The corresponding GHGRS strategies are indicated in the table to provide additional context, with the full text of the strategies preceding Table B.

Residential projects must complete Table B, Part 1 and 2; Non-residential projects must complete Table B, Part 2 only. All applicants shall complete the following steps for Table B.

1. Review the project consistency options described in the column titled ‘GHGRS Strategy and Consistency Options’.

2. Use the check boxes in the column titled “Project Conformance” to indicate if the strategy is ‘Proposed’, ‘Not Applicable’, ‘Not Feasible’, or if there is an ‘Alternative Measure Proposed’. 1 The lists in items # 2-4 do not represent all General Plan policies but allow projects to demonstrate consistency and achievement of policies that are related to quantified reduction estimates in the 2030 GHGRS.

City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
3 3. Provide a qualitative analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the GHGRS strategies in the column titled “Description of Project Measure”. This will be the basis for CEQA analysis to demonstrate compliance with the 2030 GHGRS and by extension, with SB

32. The qualitative analysis should provide:
a. A description of which consistency options are included as part of the proposed project, or
b. A description of why the strategy is not applicable to the proposed project, or c. A description of why the consistency options are infeasible. If applicants select ‘Not Feasible’ or ‘Alternative Measure Proposed’, they must complete Table C to document what alternative project measures will be implemented to achieve a similar level of greenhouse gas reduction and how those reduction estimates were calculated.

C. Alternative Project Measures and Additional GHG Reductions Projects that propose alternative GHG mitigation measures to those identified in Table B or propose to include additional GHG mitigation measures beyond those described in Tables A and B, shall provide a summary explanation of the proposed measures and demonstrate efficiency or greenhouse gas reductions achievable though the proposed measures. Documentation for these alternative or additional project measures shall be documented in Table C. Any applicants who select ‘Not Feasible’ or ‘Alternative Measure Proposed’ in Table B must complete the following steps for Table C.

1. In the column titled “Description of Proposed Measure” provide a qualitative description of what measure will be implemented, why it is proposed, and how it will reduce GHG emissions.

2. In the column titled “Description of GHG Reduction Estimate” demonstrate how the alternative project measure would achieve the same or greater level of greenhouse gas reductions as the GHGRS strategy it replaces. Documentation or calculation files can be attached separately.

3. In the column titled “Proposed Measure Implementation” identify how the measure will be implemented: incorporated as part of the project design or as an additional measure that is not part of the project (e.g., purchase of carbon offsets).

City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
4 Compliance Checklist
Evaluation of Project Conformance with the
2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
Table A: General Plan Consistency
Development Type: ☐ Commercial ☐ Residential ☐ Office ☐ Other: Specify 1) Consistency with the Land Use/Transportation Diagram (Land Use and Density) Yes No Is the proposed Project consistent with the Land Use/Transportation Diagram? If not, and the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, does the proposed amendment decrease GHG emissions (in absolute terms or per capita, per employee, per service population) below the level assumed in the GHGRS based on the existing planned land use? (The project could have a higher density, mix of uses, or other features that would reduce GHG emissions compared to the planned land use).2 If not, would the proposed project and the General Plan Amendment increase GHG emissions (in absolute terms or per capita, per employee, per service population)? Project is not consistent with GHGRS and further modeling will be required to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary.

Response documentation: [Either here or as an attachment] 2 For example, a General Plan Amendment to change use from single-family residential to multi-family residential or a General Plan Amendment to change the use from regional-serving commercial to mixed-use urban in a transit-served area might reduce travel demand, and therefore GHG emissions from mobile sources.

City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
5 2) Implementation of Green Building Measures Yes No
MS-2.2: Encourage maximized use of on-site generation of renewable energy for all new and existing buildings.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
MS-2.3: Encourage consideration of solar orientation, including building placement, landscaping, design and construction techniques for new construction to minimize energy consumption.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
MS-2.7: Encourage the installation of solar panels or other clean energy power generation sources over parking areas.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
MS-2.11: Require new development to incorporate green building practices, including those required by the Green Building Ordinance. Specifically, target reduced energy use through construction techniques (e.g., design of building envelopes and systems to maximize energy performance), through architectural design (e.g., design to maximize cross ventilation and interior daylight) and through site design techniques (e.g., orienting buildings on sites to maximize the effectiveness of passive solar design).

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
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.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
6 3) Pedestrian, Bicycle & Transit Site Design Measures Yes No CD-2.1: Promote the Circulation Goals and Policies in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan. Create streets that promote pedestrian and bicycle transportation by following applicable goals and policies in the Circulation section of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.
a) Design the street network for its safe shared use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Include elements that increase driver awareness. b) Create a comfortable and safe pedestrian environment by implementing wider sidewalks, shade structures, attractive street furniture, street trees, reduced traffic speeds, pedestrian-oriented lighting, mid-block pedestrian crossings, pedestrianactivated crossing lights, bulb-outs and curb extensions at intersections, and onstreet parking that buffers pedestrians from vehicles. c) Consider support for reduced parking requirements, alternative parking arrangements, and Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce area dedicated to parking and increase area dedicated to employment, housing, parks, public art, or other amenities. Encourage de-coupled parking to ensure that the value and cost of parking are considered in real estate and business transactions.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
CD-2.5: Integrate Green Building Goals and Policies of the Envision San José 2040 General Plan into site design to create healthful environments. Consider factors such as shaded parking areas, pedestrian connections, minimization of impervious surfaces, incorporation of stormwater treatment measures, appropriate building orientations, etc.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
7 Yes No
CD-2.11: Within the Downtown and Urban Village Overlay areas, consistent with the minimum density requirements of the pertaining Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation, avoid the construction of surface parking lots except as an interim use, so that long-term development of the site will result in a cohesive urban form. In these areas, whenever possible, use structured parking, rather than surface parking, to fulfill parking requirements. Encourage the incorporation of alternative uses, such as parks, above parking structures.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
CD-3.2: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit, community facilities (including schools), commercial areas, and other areas serving daily needs. Ensure that the design of new facilities can accommodate significant anticipated future increases in bicycle and pedestrian activity.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
CD-3.4: Encourage pedestrian cross-access connections between adjacent properties and require pedestrian and bicycle connections to streets and other public spaces, with particular attention and priority given to providing convenient access to transit facilities.

Provide pedestrian and vehicular connections with cross-access easements within and between new and existing developments to encourage walking and minimize interruptions by parking areas and curb cuts.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
LU-3.5: Balance the need for parking to support a thriving Downtown with the need to minimize the impacts of parking upon a vibrant pedestrian and transit oriented urban environment. Provide for the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians, including adequate bicycle parking areas and design measures to promote bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
8 Yes No
TR-2.8: Require new development to provide on-site facilities such as bicycle storage and showers, provide connections to existing and planned facilities, dedicate land to expand existing facilities or provide new facilities such as sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes/paths, or share in the cost of improvements.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
TR-7.1: Require large employers to develop TDM programs to reduce the vehicle trips and vehicle miles generated by their employees through the use of shuttles, provision for carsharing, bicycle sharing, carpool, parking strategies, transit incentives and other measures.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
TR-8.5: Promote participation in car share programs to minimize the need for parking spaces in new and existing development.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
4) Water Conservation and Urban Forestry Measures Yes No MS-3.1: Require water-efficient landscaping, which conforms to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, for all new commercial, institutional, industrial and developer-installed residential development unless for recreation needs or other area functions.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
9 Yes No
MS-3.2: Promote the use of green building technology or techniques that can help reduce the depletion of the City’s potable water supply, as building codes permit. For example, promote the use of captured rainwater, graywater, or recycled water as the preferred source for non-potable water needs such as irrigation and building cooling, consistent with Building Codes or other regulations.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
MS-19.4: Require the use of recycled water wherever feasible and cost-effective to serve existing and new development.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
MS-21.3: Ensure that San José’s Community Forest is comprised of species that have low water requirements and are well adapted to its Mediterranean climate. Select and plant diverse species to prevent monocultures that are vulnerable to pest invasions.

Furthermore, consider the appropriate placement of tree species and their lifespan to ensure the perpetuation of the Community Forest.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
MS-26.1: As a condition of new development, require the planting and maintenance of both street trees and trees on private property to achieve a level of tree coverage in compliance with and that implements City laws, policies or guidelines.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
10 Yes No
ER-8.7: Encourage stormwater reuse for beneficial uses in existing infrastructure and future development through the installation of rain barrels, cisterns, or other water storage and reuse facilities.

Not applicable
Describe how the project is consistent or why the measure is not applicable. [Either here or as an attachment]
GHGRS Strategies
GHGRS #1: The City will implement the San José Clean Energy program to provide residents and businesses access to cleaner energy at competitive rates.

GHGRS #2: The City will implement its building reach code ordinance (adopted September 2019) and its prohibition of natural gas infrastructure ordinance (adopted October 2019) to guide the city’s new construction toward zero net carbon (ZNC) buildings.

GHGRS #3: The City will expand development of rooftop solar energy through the provision of technical assistance and supportive financial incentives to make progress toward the Climate Smart San José goal of becoming a one-gigawatt solar city.

GHGRS #4: The City will support a transition to building decarbonization through increased efficiency improvements in the existing building stock and reduced use of natural gas appliances and equipment.

GHGRS #5: As an expansion to Climate Smart San José, the City will update its Zero Waste Strategic Plan and reassess zero waste strategies. Throughout the development of the update, the City will continue to divert 90 percent of waste away from landfills through source reduction, recycling, food recovery and composting, and other strategies.

GHGRS #6: The City will continue to be a partner in the Caltrain Modernization Project to enhance local transit opportunities while simultaneously improving the city’s air quality.

GHGRS #7: The City will expand its water conservation efforts to achieve and sustain long-term per capita reductions that ensure a reliable water supply with a changing climate, through regional partnerships, sustainable landscape designs, green infrastructure, and water-efficient technology and systems.

City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
11 Table B: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance GHGRS Strategy and Consistency
Options Description of Project Measure Project Conformance PART 1: RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ONLY
Zero Net Carbon Residential
Construction

1. Achieve/exceed the City’s Reach Code,
and

2. Exclude natural gas infrastructure in
new construction,
or

3. Install on-site renewable energy
systems or participate in a community
solar program to offset 100% of the
project’s estimated energy demand,
or

4. Participate in San José Clean Energy at
the Total Green level (i.e., 100%
carbon-free electricity) for electricity
accounts associated with the project
until which time SJCE achieves 100%
carbon-free electricity for all accounts.

Supports Strategies:

GHGRS #1, GHGRS #2, GHGRS #3
Describe which, if any, project consistency options
from the leftmost column you are implementing.

OR,
Describe why this strategy is not applicable to your
project.

OR,
Describe why such measures are infeasible.

Proposed
Not Applicable
Not Feasible*
Alternative
Measure Proposed
* The 2030 GHGRS
assumed this strategy
would be feasible for
50% of residential
units constructed
between 2020 and
2030.

PART 2: RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
Renewable Energy Development

1. Install solar panels, solar hot water, or
other clean energy power generation
sources on development sites,
or

2. Participate in community solar
programs to support development of
renewable energy in the community,
or

3. Participate in San José Clean Energy at
the Total Green level (i.e., 100%
carbon-free electricity) for electricity
accounts associated with the project.

Supports Strategies:

GHGRS #1, GHGRS #3
Describe which, if any, project consistency options
from the leftmost column you are implementing.

OR,
Describe why this strategy is not applicable to your
project.

OR,
Describe why such measures are infeasible.

See Part 1
(Residential
projects only)
Proposed
Not Applicable
Not Feasible
Alternative
Measure Proposed
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
12 GHGRS Strategy and Consistency
Options Description of Project Measure Project Conformance Building Retrofits – Natural Gas3
This strategy only applies to projects that
include a retrofit of an existing building. If
the proposed project does not include a
retrofit, select “Not Applicable” in the
Project Conformance column.

1. Replace an existing natural gas
appliance with an electric alternative
(e.g., space heater, water heater,
clothes dryer),
or

2. Replace an existing natural gas
appliance with a high-efficiency model
Supports Strategies:

GHGRS #4
Describe which, if any, project consistency options
from the leftmost column you are implementing.

OR,
Describe why this strategy is not applicable to your
project.

OR,
Describe why such measures are infeasible.

Proposed
Not Applicable
Not Feasible
Alternative
Measure Proposed
Zero Waste Goal

1. Provide space for organic waste (e.g.,
food scraps, yard waste) collection
containers,
and/or

2. Exceed the City’s construction &
demolition waste diversion
requirement.

Supports Strategies:

GHGRS #5
Describe which, if any, project consistency options
from the leftmost column you are implementing.

OR,
Describe why this strategy is not applicable to your
project.

OR,
Describe why such measures are infeasible.

Proposed
Not Applicable
Not Feasible
Alternative
Measure Proposed
3 GHGRS Strategy #4 applies to existing building retrofits and not to new construction; Strategy #2 applies to new construction to reduce natural gas related GHG emissions
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
13 GHGRS Strategy and Consistency
Options Description of Project Measure Project Conformance Caltrain Modernization

1. For projects located within ½ mile of a
Caltrain station, establish a program
through which to provide project
tenants and/or residents with free or
reduced Caltrain passes
or

2. Develop a program that provides
project tenants and/or residents with
options to reduce their vehicle miles
traveled (e.g., a TDM program), which
could include transit passes, bike
lockers and showers, or other
strategies to reduce project related
VMT.

Supports Strategies:

GHGRS #6
Describe which, if any, project consistency options
from the leftmost column you are implementing.

OR,
Describe why this strategy is not applicable to your
project.

OR,
Describe why such measures are infeasible.

Proposed
Not Applicable
Not Feasible
Alternative
Measure Proposed
Water Conservation

1. Install high-efficiency
appliances/fixtures to reduce water
use, and/or include water-sensitive
landscape design,
and/or

2. Provide access to reclaimed water for
outdoor water use on the project site.

Supports Strategies:

GHGRS #7
Describe which, if any, project consistency options
from the leftmost column you are implementing.

OR,
Describe why this strategy is not applicable to your
project.

OR,
Describe why such measures are infeasible.

Proposed
Not Applicable
Not Feasible
Alternative
Measure Proposed
City of San José GHGRS Project Compliance Checklist
14 Table C: Applicant Proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures
Description of Proposed Measure Description of GHG Reduction Estimate Proposed Measure Implementation
[Describe the proposed project measure
and why it is proposed]
Supports Strategies/Sectors:

GHGRS #
[Demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
measure to reduce the project’s GHG emissions.

Include a description of how your measure will reduce
emissions and provide supporting quantification
documentation/assumptions.]
Part of Design
Additional
Measure
[Describe the proposed project measure
and why it is proposed]
Supports Strategies/Sectors:

GHGRS #
[Demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
measure to reduce the project’s GHG emissions.

Include a description of how your measure will reduce
emissions and provide supporting quantification
documentation/assumptions.]
Part of Design
Additional
Measure
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard
Hotel Project
File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TEXT

CHANGES
October 2021
CEQA Lead Agency:

City of San José
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, California 95113 Phone: (408) 535-3555
In Consultation with:

EMC Planning Group
Teri Wissler Adam, Vice President and Senior Principal
[email protected]
831-649-1799 ext. 203
File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
2 October 2021
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ...............................................................................3 SECTION 2 AGENCIES AND PERSONS COMMENTING ON THE IS/MND.......................4 SECTION 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS................................................................................5 A. RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY ROADS AND AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT ..............................................................................................................................................5 B. RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT....................................8 C. RESPONSE TO JEFFREY WILLIAMS ...........................................................................10 D. RESPONSE TO SHEHANA MARIKAR.............................................................................14 E. RESPONSE TO DAN AND AMY BOYLE .....................................................................18 F. RESPONSE TO AISHAH SALIHUE...............................................................................19 G. RESPONSE TO MIKE DRABKIN...................................................................................22 H. RESPONSE TO MARLENE SCHWILK..........................................................................23 I. RESPONSE TO TOM AND GAIL MORMAN................................................................24 J. RESPONSE TO MONICA PAIGE JUMA .......................................................................31 K. RESPONSE TO STEPHEN JUMA...................................................................................32 L. RESPONSE TO ALI S ......................................................................................................33 M. RESPONSE TO HAL STONE..........................................................................................35 N. RESPONSE TO MABEL CHENG ...................................................................................36 O. RESPONSE TO HELEN MATSUMOTO ........................................................................38 P. RESPONSE TO JENNIFER MUSCHA............................................................................42 Q. RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC..........................................................44 R. RESPONSE TO JOHN GRISWOLD................................................................................45 S. RESPONSE TO CHAIRWOMAN QUIRINA GEARY, TAMIEN NATION .................46 SECTION 4 TEXT CHANGES TO THE IS/MND ......................................................................36 SECTION 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS .........................................................................................48 Attachment
Attachment A – All Public Comments to IS/MND During Public Review Period File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
3 October 2021
SECTION 1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
The 1212-1224 South Winchester Hotel Project Initial Study /Mitigation Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public review for a 20-day review period, from May 26, 2021 to June 15, 2021. During the circulation period, the City of San José received 19 comment letters from:
▪ Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department;
▪ Santa Clara Valley Water District;
▪ Jeffrey Williams;
▪ Shehana Marikar;
▪ Dan and Amy Boyle;
▪ Aishah Salihue;
▪ Mike Drabkin;
▪ Marlene Schwilk;
▪ Tom and Gail Morman;
▪ Monica Paige Juma;
▪ Stephen Juma;
▪ Ali S;
▪ Hal Stone;
▪ Mabel Cheng;
▪ Helen Matsumoto;
▪ Jennifer Muscha;
▪ Pacific Gas and Electric
▪ John Griswold
▪ Chairwoman Quirina Geary, Tamien Nation
In summary, the comments received on the draft IS/MND did not raise any new issues about the project’s environmental impacts, or provide information indicating the project would result in new environmental impacts or impacts substantially greater in severity than disclosed in the IS/MND. CEQA does not require formal responses to comments on an IS/MND, only that the lead agency consider the comments received [CEQA Guidelines §15074(b)].

Nevertheless, responses to the comments are included in this document to provide a complete administrative record.

The following pages contain a list of the agencies and persons that submitted comments on the IS/MND and the City’s responses to comments received on the IS/MND. The specific comments have been excerpted from the letter and are presented as “Comment” with each response directly following (“Response”). Copies of the actual comments submitted to the City of San José are included in Attachment A.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
4 October 2021
SECTION 2 AGENCIES AND PERSONS COMMENTING ON

THE IS/MND
Comment Received From Date of Letter Response on Page
A. Santa Clara County Roads and Airports
Department
June 10, 2021 5
B. Santa Clara Valley Water District June 10, 2021 8
C. Jeffrey Williams June 14, 2021 10
D. Shehana Marikar June 14, 2021 14
E. Dan and Amy Boyle June 14, 2021 18
F. Aishah Salihue June 14, 2021 19
G. Mike Drabkin June 14, 2021 22
H. Marlene Schwilk June 15, 2021 23
I. Tom and Gail Morman June 15, 2021 24
J. Monica Paige Juma June 15, 2021 31
K. Stephen Juma June 15, 2021 32
L. Ali S June 15, 2021 33
M. Hal Stone June 15, 2021 35
N. Mabel Cheng June 15, 2021 36
O. Helen Matsumoto June 15, 2021 38
P. Jennifer Muscha June 15, 2021 42
Q. Pacific Gas and Electric May 27, 2021 44
R. John Griswold June 15, 2021 45
S. Chairwoman Quirina Geary June 11, 2021 46
File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
5 October 2021
SECTION 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This memo responds to comments on the IS/MND as they relate to the potential environmental impacts of the project under CEQA. Numbered responses correspond to comments in each comment letter. Copies of the comment letters are included in Attachment A.

A. RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY ROADS AND AIRPORTS

DEPARTMENT
Comment A1: 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.

Response A1: As described in Transportation/Traffic, Section 4.17 of the Initial Study, the project will not have a VMT impact per the City’s screening criteria for retail use. The City’s VMT Evaluation Tool is limited to the evaluation of four general land use categories:
residential, office, industrial, and retail. Thus, the use of the VMT evaluation tool for the evaluation of land uses other than the four general land uses described above, such as the proposed hotel, requires the conversion of the proposed land use to an equivalent amount (based on trip generation characteristics) of residential units, office space, industrial space, or retail space (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2020). Since the characteristics of the proposed hotel would have similar trip generating characteristics to retail space, the proposed hotel was converted into an equivalent amount of retail space. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less than significant VMT impacts and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2020, p. ii). The transportation analysis determined that the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,455 daily trips, which is equivalent to the trips estimated to be generated by approximately 38,000 square feet of retail space. Pursuant to San José’s VMT screening criteria, retail projects of 100,000 square feet or less are considered local-serving. Therefore, the proposed project does not require a detailed CEQA VMT analysis and would result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Non-CEQA effects. Nonetheless, the project will require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that includes the following recommended measures to meet requirements outlined in Section 20.90.220 of the Zoning Ordinance for a reduction in required parking exceeding twenty percent:
• Bicycle Parking
• On-site bicycles for guest use
• Guest shuttle services
• On-site access to car-share vehicles for employees and guests • Free annual Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Smart Passes for employees
• Financial incentives for employees who bike or walk to work • On-site TDM coordinator and services
File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
6 October 2021
Implementation of the measures outlined above would ensure the project meets the provisions for vehicle parking reduction.

Parking is no longer a CEQA issue and is discussed for informational purposes only1. The project proposes reduced parking and would be required to provide a total of 63 parking spaces, consistent with the City’s requirement. Furthermore, as discussed in Appendices H and I, Transportation Analysis and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, the future hotel operator would be responsible for ensuring that the TDM trip reduction measures are fully implemented and the TDM Plan is maintained for the life of the project. As a Condition of Project Approval, the project would implement a TDM plan. Any violation of the TDM plan would be subject to revocation, suspension, or modification of the permit.

This comment does not result in new or more significant impacts or additional mitigation and therefore, the IS/MND does not require recirculation.

Comment A2: 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:
▪ Hamilton Ave (CMP)
▪ Payne Ave
▪ Williams
Response A2: As shown in the trip assignment figures for the nearby mixed-use project (Figure 14, page 34 of the 1073-1087 South Winchester Boulevard Traffic Analysis [Appendix H]) the mixed-use project is projected to generate a total of 437 daily vehicle trips, with 36 trips (20 inbound and 16 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 41 trips (16 inbound and 25 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour and the proposed project (Figure 11, page 29 of the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Traffic Analysis [Appendix H]),would generate a total of 1,266 daily vehicle trips, with 64 trips (37 inbound and 27 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 75 trips (37 inbound and 38 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour for a combined total of 100 AM peak hour trips and 116 AM peak hour trips as indicated by the commenter. Per the Traffic Analysis, the peak-hour vehicle trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the trip distribution pattern, with an emphasis on freeway access and project driveway location. The AM peak hour typically occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a regular weekday.

As stated in the Local Traffic Analysis section of the traffic study prepared for the project, intersections were selected for study if the project is expected to add 10 vehicle trips per hour per lane to an intersection that meets one of the following criteria (as outlined in the

1 In 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency deleted “parking availability” from the Transportation/Traffic section of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist consistent with San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002).

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
7 October 2021
Transportation Analysis Handbook):
• Within a ½-mile buffer from the project’s property line; • Outside a ½-mile buffer but within a one-mile buffer from the project AND currently operating at D or worse;
• Designated Congestion Management Program (CMP) facility outside of the City’s Infill Opportunity Zones;
• Outside the City limits with the potential to be affected by the project, per the transportation standards of the corresponding external jurisdiction with potential to be affected by the project, per engineering judgement of Public Works.

The following intersections located between a one-half mile and one-mile radii from the nearby mixed-use project (1073-1087 South Winchester) site were included in the study based on the above criteria:

1. Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road

2. Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue

3. Winchester Boulevard and Walgrove Way (unsignalized) The proposed hotel project (1212-1224 South Winchester) included the following intersections in the study:

1. Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road

2. Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue

3. Winchester Boulevard and David Avenue/Williamsburg Drive

4. Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue

5. Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive
The San Tomás Expressway intersections with Hamilton Avenue, Payne Avenue and Williams Road do not meet the above the criteria and therefore were not chosen for the intersection study. Specifically, these intersections are outside of the 1/2-mile buffer from the project site and based on the estimated project trips, there would not be more than ten trips distributed to those intersections. As shown in the trip assignment figures for each of the proposed developments (Figure 14 for 1073-1087 South Winchester Boulevard and Figure 11 for 1212- 1224 South Winchester Boulevard), the proposed projects are projected to add no more than six peak hour trips to the referenced San Tomas Expressway intersections on an individual basis or cumulatively combined. Therefore, the referenced intersections do not meet the ten trips per hour per lane criteria. Furthermore, the use of San Tomás Expressway is expected to be minimal since it does not provide access to I-280 as does Winchester Boulevard. Therefore, the referenced San Tomás Expressway intersections do not meet the City’s selection criteria for study. This 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
8 October 2021
B. RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Comment B1: 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”.

Response B1: The IS/MND is corrected to show the receiving body of water as San Tomas Aquino, and is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND). This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment B2: 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.

Response B2: The IS/MND is corrected to state 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, and is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND). This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment B3: 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.

Response B3: The IS/MND is corrected to state that FEMA Flood Zone D is an area where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible, and is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND). This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment B4: 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.

Response B4: The IS/MND is corrected to state that water service to the project site would be provided by San Jose Water Company, and is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND). This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment B5: 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.

Response B5: The IS/MND is corrected by removing the reference to the number of groundwater recharge facilities, and is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND).

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
9 October 2021
Comment B6: 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.

Response B6: The IS/MND is corrected to show that the distance from the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail is approximately 1 mile, and is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND). This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment B7: 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.

Response B7:. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required. The project permit will include a condition of approval requiring the project applicant to coordinate with Valley Water prior to issuance of Grading Permit.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
10 July 2021
C. RESPONSE TO JEFFREY WILLIAMS
Comment C1: 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.

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 José Parking Code, as discussed on Page 10 of the Draft TDM Plan.

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.

Response C1: As described in Section 4.14 (Population and Housing), the staffing plan for hotel operations includes 10 employees. The hotel plans to provide employee parking for up to ten employees anticipated to be on a shift at a time in addition to the required parking spaces for hotel guest rooms. Per the Operations Plan, the ten employee positions would be split into three shifts. Additionally, the project’s parking requirement, which includes a 49% parking reduction, would be supported by a TDM program which would encourage alternate File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
11 July 2021
modes of access to the site including use of public transit by employees. As parking is not a CEQA issue and the project correctly considered the number of anticipated employees as outlined by the project description and further described in the Operations Plan (Attachment B), this does not raise new information that would not result in a change in analysis, impacts, or mitigation measures than those analyzed in the IS/MND and associated appendices. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment C2: 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 José 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 José 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 José Parking Code.

Additionally, the City of San José 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.

Response C2: Parking is no longer a CEQA issue and is discussed in the Initial Study and Transportation Analysis for informational purposes only. The project proposes reduced parking and would be required to provide a total of 63 parking spaces on-site, consistent with the City’s requirement after eligible reductions. The project would provide 66 on-site vehicle parking spaces. Additionally, prior to plan approval, project plans are reviewed for conformance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable policies and requirements including Municipal Code requirements related to parking design. As shown in Appendix A (Project Plans, Sheet A.06) of the Initial Study, vehicular parking space dimensions are eight feet, six inches wide and seventeen feet in length which complies with File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
12 July 2021
the Uniform Parking Space minimum dimensions (eight feet, six inches wide and seventeen feet long) described in Table 20-220 of the San José Municipal Code. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking space dimensions are 9 feet wide and seventeen feet in length.

Per Section 20.90.060 3(a), the City may authorize all off-street vehicle parking spaces to be uniform-size car spaces which are 17-feet in length.

The project plans include a 26-foot-wide clearance behind the cars for circulation and maneuvering. All parking space sizes are based on City requirements as outlined in Chapter

20.90 (Parking and Loading) of Title 20 and are reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of any permits.

Pursuant to Table 20-190 in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 20), stacking shall be calculated at twenty feet per car for car wash uses; this calculation does not apply to parking spaces.

This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment C3: 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.

Response C3: As described in the Transportation Analysis (Appendix H of the IS/MND), a designated trash collection area will be provided on site on the north end of the lot adjacent to residential use. As stated in the Operations Plan (Attachment B), on trash collection days, trash bins will be wheeled out by hotel employees to the trash staging area along the Winchester Boulevard project frontage where garbage trucks would perform their operations outside of the development at the curb. The trash bins will only be on Winchester Boulevard temporarily and will be moved back on site by hotel employees for storage. The trash enclosure as shown on the project plans (Appendix A of the IS/MND), is 13 feet by eight feet and would be located entirely interior to the building. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment C4: 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 File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
13 July 2021
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.

Response C4: The project is not proposing, nor will the City allow, an on-street loading zone on Winchester Boulevard given the planned complete street improvement which would provide two travel lanes with a Class IV bike lane and no on-street parking along the project frontage. As stated in the IS/MND, the project is anticipated to have one to two truck deliveries per day and would temporarily park and unload along South Winchester Boulevard; a drop-off area is proposed south of the parking access entry area where smaller trucks would conduct deliveries. Generally, loading zones are determined during the implementation phase in coordination with the City’s Department of Transportation.

Consultants would need to coordinate with the City’s DOT to understand the needs, operations, and hours of the loading zone. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
14 July 2021
D. RESPONSE TO SHEHANA MARIKAR
Comment D1: 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.

Response D1: A Shade Study included in Appendix A (Project Plans), Sheets A.28 and A.29, was prepared for the proposed project. The Shade Study analyzed shadows cast by existing buildings as well as shadows anticipated to be cast by the project.

Based on the Shade Study depicted on Appendix A, Sheets A.28 and A.29, the longest shadows cast from the proposed project are to the adjacent residence immediately north (1204 South Winchester Boulevard) of the project site especially during the winter afternoon hours. Minimal amounts of shadows, as shown on the Shade Study, would also be cast onto the same residence during the autumn season. Based on the Shade Study, the proposed project would not cast significant shadows on any surrounding residences during the spring and summer seasons. Additionally, the Shade Study indicates the project would not cast significant shadows on the residences on Red Oaks Drive, located east of the project site, during the day; shading is shown to occur during the autumn, winter, spring and summer late afternoon hours. A building stepback at 35 feet in height is a design measure incorporated into the project to reduce shadows cast onto the single-family homes located east of the project site. Therefore, as summarized above, the shade cast on the surrounding residential land uses would not impair the use of the properties. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment D2: 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.

Response D2: The comment is not clear as to what is meant by who will compensate for the increased electric bills. The IS/MND analyzed energy use of the project in Section 4.6. The hotel operator is responsible for payment of all utility bills for utilities generated by the project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment D3: 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?
Response D3: Pursuant to Chapter 20.40 of the San José Municipal Code, the project site is within the Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District, which allows for buildings to reach a height of 65 feet. As described in Section 3.0 (Project Description) of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be taller than nearby residences; however, the project meets the height restrictions and setbacks of this zoning district. Single-family residences to the north are single story; single-family residences to the east are a mix of one and two stories; the project would be six stories and therefore, four to five stories taller than the surrounding residences. As shown on the plan set (Appendix A of the IS/MND), there are no balconies File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
15 July 2021
facing the residences to the north or east. The portion of the building facing residences to the east would have outdoor planters to further obscure the view out of the windows. The project would provide the required 20-foot rear setback and five-foot side setbacks. The project would also incorporate a building step back at a height of 35 feet to reduce shadows and maintain the privacy of existing adjacent residences. The project also includes the installation of landscaping (i.e., trees) along the eastern border of the project site which would enhance the privacy of the nearby residences. Therefore, this comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment D4: 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?
Response D4: Refer to IS/MND Section 4.15.4, Impact Discussion, within the Public Services section of the Initial Study discussing fire protection service resources. Two existing fire stations would respond to any fires that occur at the project site, both located less than two miles away. Additionally, Section 4.9 of the Initial Study analyzed the project’s impact on emergency response plans or evacuation plans. The project would comply with all required Building and Fire Code requirements and the proposed development would not result in a physical barrier to impeded emergency services. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Additionally, the project would not result in an impact to the operation of emergency services or emergency evacuation plans.

Comment D5: 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? Response D5: Pages 155-159 of Initial Study/MND Section 4.17 (Transportation/Traffic), provide a discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. There currently are no sidewalks along the project’s frontage on Winchester Boulevard. Therefore, students currently walking along Winchester Boulevard to and from the referenced schools must walk within a two-foot dirt pathway directly adjacent to the travel lanes on northbound Winchester Boulevard. The proposed project will install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. In addition, a sight distance analysis was conducted at the project driveway by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix H) to ensure adequate sight distance for vehicles to see pedestrians. The project meets the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) minimum stopping sight distance standard (Winchester Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour, the AASHTO stopping sight distance for a facility with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour is 305 feet; a driver must be able to see 305 feet to the south along Winchester Boulevard). Therefore, the project will improve pedestrian travel along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. No File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
16 July 2021
further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment D6: Page 165 of the 1212-1224 Initial study describes Winchester BLVD, as a divided 6 lane north 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? Response D6: Page 15 of the Transportation Analysis (Appendix H of the IS/MND) states, “Winchester Boulevard is a divided six-lane north-south roadway that runs from Los Gatos to Lincoln Street in Santa Clara…” The text should have stated that Winchester Boulevard is generally a six-lane roadway; however, the segment between Payne Avenue and Williams Avenue provides only five travel lanes (two northbound and three southbound). The text correction has no effect on the traffic analysis and its conclusions. The text correction is included in Section 4 (Text Changes to the IS/MND). This information does not change the CEQA analysis or conclusions in the IS/MND, therefore, recirculation is not required.

Comment D7: 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?
Response D7: Regarding the garbage collection operations, please see Response C3.

The IS/MND Section 4.13, analyzed noise generated from truck activities associated with the site including trash pick-up and truck deliveries. The analysis determined, “Due to the infrequent nature of truck deliveries, and truck movements within the project site itself, noise levels associated with truck movements would not exceed any noise standards at offsite sensitive receptor locations or result in an increase of existing ambient noise levels.

The noise assessment prepared for the proposed project (Appendix G) states that “activities involved in trash bin collection could result in minor onsite vibrations as the bin is placed back onto the ground. Such vibrations would not be expected to be felt at the closest offsite sensitive uses.” As discussed in Response C3, on trash collection days, trash bins will be wheeled out by hotel employees to the trash staging area along the Winchester Boulevard away from the residential uses. Additionally, general project construction noise is also addressed in the IS/MND. Specifically, because project construction would occur within 500 feet of residential land uses and within 200 feet of office uses and would last for approximately 24 months, the project applicant would provide a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures posting or notification of construction schedules, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to neighborhood complaints. The noise logistics plan will be required to be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. Furthermore, the project permit (which runs with the land) will include an anti-litter condition of approval which requires the site and the surrounding area be maintained free of litter, refuse and debris.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
17 July 2021
This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment D8: 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?
Response D8: Best management practices adapted from the 2017 Bay Area Management Air Quality District (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan (CAP) include watering exposed or disturbed soil surfaces twice daily to control fugitive dust during project construction. Watering is limited to loose soil/gravel mounds and not the entire project site for the benefit of surrounding uses to keep air quality and erosion impacts less than significant. Project construction activity is anticipated to last approximately 24 months and therefore, the prescribed site watering would be temporary. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment D9: 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? Response D9: Project construction would last approximately 350 days over a 24-month period. Refer to Section 4.3.4, Impact Discussion of the Air Quality Section of the Initial Study/MND and the project’s Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C) which analyzes the impact of the construction and operation of the project on surrounding sensitive receptors including the northern residence. The volume of criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions generated during construction of the proposed project that could result in increased cancer risks are estimated based on the number and type, horsepower and operational hours of construction equipment, soil import and export, importing asphalt and other materials. The modeled construction data is found in the IS/MND Appendix B. The construction data is entered into CalEEMod over four categories of construction phases:
demolition, excavation, construction and paving work over the duration of the construction period. According to the CalEEMod results, the greatest volumes of unmitigated toxic air contaminant emissions would be generated during the first year of construction activity when much of the excavation work would occur. Unmitigated emissions generated by year and by each construction phase are shown in the CalEEMod results (IS/MND Appendix B).

For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing toxic air contaminants. All residential locations studied in the assessment are assumed to include infants and small children. Exposures to criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants that would exceed infant cancer risk thresholds are estimated using modeled toxic air contaminant concentrations combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)guidance (2015 risk assessment guidelines) for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by BAAQMD (refer also to the Health Risk Assessment Attachment 1).

The exposures are calculated for the location of the maximally exposed individual; that is, the resident (assumed to be an infant) that would be expected to be exposed to the greatest concentrations of construction emissions. The maximally exposed individual is shown in the Health Risk Assessment Figure 1). Infant exposures at this location provide a “worst-case” File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
18 July 2021
benchmark for the assessment of risk. All other receptor locations shown on Figure 1 would be exposed to fewer emissions and subsequently, smaller pollutant concentrations.

The 2015 risk assessment guidelines recommend that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to toxic air contaminants.

Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of toxic air contaminants are calculated based on the toxic air contaminant concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the toxic air contaminant cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing toxic air contaminants. The inhalation dose depends on breathing rates, exposure time, frequency, and duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location. The parameters are described in greater detail in the Health Risk Assessment Attachment 1.

Potential non-cancer health hazards from toxic air contaminant exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index, which is the ratio of the toxic air contaminant concentration to a reference exposure level. OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. As reported in the Health Risk Assessment and IS/MND, toxic air contaminant concentrations below the reference exposure level are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals.

The maximum increase in infant cancer risks resulting from exposures to unmitigated construction toxic air contaminant emissions at the maximally exposed individual (assumed to be infant exposures) would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for increases in infant cancer risk. Additional modeling shows that if construction toxic air contaminant emissions are reduced by 70 percent, the increase in infant cancer risks during construction would be lowered to levels below the single-source and cumulative thresholds at the location of the maximally exposed individual. Risk would be reduced even further at greater distances and/or upwind locations from the project site. Implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) best management practices (BMP) during all phases of construction and ground disturbance in compliance with General Plan Policy MS13.1, would reduce the magnitude of the increased infant cancer risk during the construction period, but not to below the air district thresholds. In addition, the Initial Study/MND includes a mitigation measure (MM AIR-1.1, page 47 of the Initial Study/MND) requiring a construction operations plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used for construction of the project would achieve a fleet-wide average of at least 70 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust emissions. Implementation of this measure along with the recommended BMPs listed as Standard Permit Conditions for the proposed project, would reduce the emissions volumes and exposures to them that can lead to an increase in infant cancer risk to less than significant levels. The project’s hazard index, annual PM2.5, and cancer risk would all be within the established BAAQMD thresholds. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
19 July 2021
E. RESPONSE TO DAN AND AMY BOYLE
Comment E1: 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.

Response E1: Please refer to the response under Response D3.

Comment E2: Any overflow parking will be filtered to surrounding residential streets, decreasing parking for residents.

Response E2:

Pursuant to Council Policy 5-1 and the CEQA Guidelines, parking is no longer a CEQA issue and is discussed for informational purposes only. The project proposes reduced parking and would be required to provide a total of 63 parking spaces with the implementation of the Transportation Demand Management Plan (See Appendix I), consistent with the City’s requirement as outlined in Municipal Code Sections 20.90 and 20.90.220. As a Condition of Project Approval, the project would implement a TDM plan and any violation of the TDM plan would be subject to revocation, suspension, or modification of the permit. The immediate surrounding neighborhood does not participate in a parking permit program; the project site is located just outside of the Cadillac Residential Permit Parking (RPP) boundary.

Appendix H of the IS/MND includes the project’s TDM and LTA and analyzes the operations of the proposed project and site. The study does not show adverse effects to the surrounding environment. The design of the project would not result in operations of unique circumstances that would create a hazard to the operations that is beyond City’s policies and regulations.

The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment E3: 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.

Response E3: The visual impacts from private viewing areas are not evaluated in the IS/MND as these are not considered CEQA impacts. As stated in Section 4.0 of the IS/MND, the project site is not located within designated viewsheds or view corridors identified in either the General Plan or the City’s Scenic Corridors Diagram nor are there any scenic vistas observable from the project vicinity due to existing obstructing topography and buildings. As discussed in Response D.3, the project is in conformance with the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District development standards and the maximum height allowed under the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
20 July 2021
F. RESPONSE TO AISHAH SALIHUE
Comment F1: 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.

Response F1: Refer to the information under Response C1.

Comment F2: 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.

Response F2: Parking and level of service (e.g. traffic congestion) are no longer CEQA issues and are discussed for informational purposes only. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of the IS/MND, the proposed hotel was converted into an equivalent amount of retail space and it was estimated to generate 1,455 daily trips, which is equivalent to the trips generated by approximately 38,000 square feet of retail space. Pursuant to the City’s VMT screening criteria, retail projects of 100,000 square feet or less are considered local-serving. Therefore, the proposed project did not require a detailed CEQA VMT analysis and the VMT impact was determined to be less than significant.

The project proposes reduced parking and would be required to provide a total of 63 parking spaces with the implementation of the Transportation Demand Management Plan (See Appendix I), consistent with the City’s requirement as outlined in Municipal Code Sections

20.90 and 20.90.220. The project would provide 66 on-site vehicle parking spaces which meets the minimum requirement of 63 vehicle parking spaces. As a Condition of Project Approval, the project would implement a TDM plan and any violation of the TDM plan would be subject to revocation, suspension, or modification of the permit.

The TDM Plan identifies viable alternatives to traditional driving practices that will support guests who arrive by other means than by private car, such as hotel guest shuttle and bicycle, car-share vehicles, and bicycle parking as well as hotel employees who would receive File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
21 July 2021
financial incentives for walking or bicycling to work and free VTA Smart Pass cards. The project’s parking garage includes a location for valet vehicle queuing and the ground floor has a loading space for delivery trucks.

Appendix H of the IS/MND includes the project’s TDM and LTA analyzes the operations of the propose project and site. The study does not show adverse effects to the surrounding environment. The design of the project would not result in operations of unique circumstances that would create a hazard to the operations that is beyond City’s policies and regulations.

The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment F3: 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 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 José’s commitment to becoming a greener city.

Response F3: The construction period is anticipated to last approximately 24 months. Please refer to the response provided under Response D9.

Comment F4: 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.

Response F4: Please refer to the information provided under Response D7.

Comment F5: 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.

Response F5: Refer to the information provided under Response D4.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
22 July 2021
Comment F6: As a teacher in the San José 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.

Response F6: Pages 51-54 of the Transportation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Appendix H), provide a discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. There currently are no sidewalks along the project’s frontage on Winchester Boulevard. Therefore, students currently walking along Winchester Boulevard to and from the referenced schools must walk within a two-foot dirt pathway directly adjacent to the travel lanes on northbound Winchester Boulevard. The proposed project will install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard.

Additionally, the project will include conditions of approval to install an audible warning signal at the garage entrances to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage. Therefore, the project will improve pedestrian travel along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND.

No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment F7: 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.

Response F7: Please refer to the response under Response D3.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
23 July 2021
G. RESPONSE TO MIKE DRABKIN
Comment G1: 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.
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 requirements for a hotel of this classification.

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 a 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%20p erson.
a) 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 1:1 ratio.”
Check-in Check-Out: Managing Hotel Operations, Second Edition, by Gary K. Vallen and Jerome J.

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_campaig n=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 File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
24 July 2021
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. 3) 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 pick-up and drop off, would severely impact Winchester Boulevard north-bound traffic.

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 -----------------------
Response G1: Refer to Response C1 and Attachment B which outlines the hotels staffing plan within the hotel operations plan.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
25 July 2021
H. RESPONSE TO MARLENE SCHWILK
Comment H1: 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.

Response H1:As discussed in Response D.3, the project is in conformance with the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District development standards and the project aligns with the development anticipated in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The IS/MND reviewed the proposed project and concluded with the implementation of Air, Biological, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise Mitigation Measures and project Standard Permit Conditions, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment H2: 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.

Response H2: Refer to the response under Response C1.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
26 July 2021
I. RESPONSE TO TOM AND GAIL MORMAN
Comment I1: 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.

Response I1: Per City practice, draft CEQA documents, including draft technical documents, are not released to the public until all documents have been finalized as the document and analysis are subject to change throughout the City’s review process.

Consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a), the 1212-1224 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated publicly for 20 days, from May 26, 2021 to June 15, 2021. Therefore, the requirements of CEQA have been met.

Additionally, the IS/MND 20-day circulation period is not the only opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the project and its review. The IS/MND and proposed project will be heard at a public City Council hearing. The City accepts project comments received leading up to and at the public hearings. The public hearings will be noticed with a hearing notice to the community within 1,000 feet of the project site. Public hearing notices are also posted on the City’s website: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/commissions-andhearings/planning-commission/agendas-minutes-2021 Comment I2: 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)
Response I2: The reduction in parking is not contingent on the height of the building.

Pursuant to San José Municipal Code Section 20.90.220 (a-d), a project is eligible for a 20 percent parking:
• it is located within 2,000 feet of a proposed or existing rail station or bus rapid transit station, or an area designated as a neighborhood business district, or as an urban village, or as an area subject to an area development policy in the City’s general plan or the use is listed in Section 20.90.220 G; • and the structure or use provides bicycle parking spaces in conformance with the requirements of Table 20-90.

For any reduction in the required of-street parking spaces that is more than twenty percent and up to 50 percent, the project shall be required to implement a transportation demand management program (TDM).

As stated in the Initial Study/MND, the project is located in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village and provides the minimum bicycle parking per Table 20-90, and is incorporating a TDM plan. Therefore, the project meets the provisions of Section 20.90.220 and therefore, is eligible for a parking reduction between 20-50 percent.

The Initial Study/MND identifies the proposed project’s height would be 64 feet, 7 inches. In accordance with Figure 5-3 of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, buildings File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
27 July 2021
equal to or less than 65 feet in height are subject to the 45-degree daylight rule in addition to a 20-foot rear setback when located adjacent to Residential Neighborhood or Urban Residential Land Use designations. As such, the building design incorporates a step back at 35 feet in height on the eastern property line, adjacent to residential uses.

The comment is not a CEQA issue as the hotel project meets the VMT screening criteria and therefore would not have a significant impact under CEQA. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment I3: 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.

Response I3: This comment relates to page 1 of Mitigated Negative Declaration document that is part of the IS/MND. The identified mitigation measures shown on pages 2-5 of the MND identify the revisions the applicant has agreed to make to the project pursuant to the mitigation measures that must be implemented. This provides the public with a document that includes a complete project description and the mitigation measures needed, for review before the project is approved.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration which was circulated for 20 days from May 26, 2021 to June

15. 2021, discloses potentially significant effects associated with the project and outlines the implementable mitigation measures to lower the potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is not considered final until the project goes before the hearing authority and is adopted in an action along with the Special Use Permit.

Comment I4: 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 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.

Response I4: Refer to the response under Response C1.

Comment I5: 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? Response I5: The project is not proposing, nor will the City allow, an on-street or on-site File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
28 July 2021
drop off zone on Winchester Boulevard. All guests will proceed to the parking garage for check-in. The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements.

Comment I6: 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? Response I6: See Response C2.

Comment I7: 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.

Response I7: Please refer to the response provided under Response D4. During the Planning Review, the Fire Department noted that a Fire Variance will be required for the project. The Fire Variance application will be deferred to the Building Permit stage. Approval of the Fire Variance is required prior to issuance of the Building Permit.

Comment I8: 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.

Response I8: This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
29 July 2021
CEQA analysis is required. For informational purposes, the floor-area ratio (FAR) calculation is correct. Section 20.200.413 defines FAR as “the floor area of the building or buildings divided by the total project site area…Total project site area is determined as follows: (1) The area of land covered under a single development permit, exclusive of any area dedicated by the project for public right of way, public park, or public school purposes. (2) Areas covered by sidewalk easements shall be included int eh total project site area.” The fire hose lines and fire access easements are not dedications or land conveyed for public right-of-way, public parks or public school purposes and therefore the calculation is correct.

Comment I9: Maximum roof top height limits. Per Municipal 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.

Response I9: This comment does not address the adequacy of the MND. No further CEQA analysis is required. For informational purposes, Sheet A.14 of Appendix A in the IS/MND is a floor plan review of the roof and does not indicate the height of the building. Sheet A.17 of Appendix A includes the elevator’s height, which is ten feet above the roofline and the tallest point of the building. The maximum building height including the elevator and other non-occupiable architectural features is 74 feet, 6 inches.

Comment I10: 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.”
Response I10: There will be no drop-off or pick-up area at the garage entry as referenced in the comment. Rather, all guests will proceed to the parking garage basement level for valet queuing and check-in, as depicted in Sheet A.06 of Appendix A of the Initial Study/MND.

Therefore, the parking garage circulation will not contradict Policy 3-20 of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan as it would not interrupt the pedestrian and bicycle environment or interfere with the greater pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity to the overall network. The implementation of safety devices such as the recommended visible and/or audible warning signs is not in conflict with City policies that are intended to also improve pedestrian and bicyclist’s safety and as discussed in Response F6, the visible and audible sign would be a project condition of approval to ensure conformance with City requirements. Per the updated Hotel Operations Plan (Attachment B), pick-up/drop-off for rideshare vehicles and taxis will occur inside the garage. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Initial Study/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment I11: Delivery and Loading Zone: The Hotel Plan now has an on-site Loading Zone.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
30 July 2021
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.”
Response I11: As described in Section 3.0 (Project Description) [or Sheet A.08 in Appendix A] of the IS/MND, the trash bin storage location would be hidden from public view in accordance with the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. Per the Hotel Operations Plan (Attachment B), the trash bins will be wheeled out to South Winchester Boulevard for garbage collection. The trash bin staging on Winchester Boulevard will be temporary and as conditioned in the project permit, bins will be returned to the trash enclosure following garbage collection. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Initial Study/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment I12: 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?
Response I12: The setback area, established by the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, establishes the area which a building cannot be located. It does not limit the location of other features including landscaping, seating, etc. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment I13: 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.

Response I13: Project construction activities associated with the project would result in 33.1 cancer risk cases per one million, which exceeds the BAQQMD threshold of 10 in one million; however, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1, which includes the submittal of a construction operation plan prepared by an air quality specialist, the project’s impact would be reduced to less than significant levels (less than 10 in one million cancer risk threshold). MM AQ-1 is integrated into the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a) (2) which states, “mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” The construction operation plan would be reviewed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit and implemented during construction activities.

The approved construction operation plan would be available to the public. This comment does not raise any new information that would change the project’s impact or provide new File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
31 July 2021
information that would result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures that those analyzed and disclosed in the Initial Study/MND and associated appendices.

Comment I14: 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.

Response I14: According to the noise assessment prepared by WJV Acoustics on September 17, 2020 (Appendix G), the highest levels of construction related vibration are typically associated with pile driving and the use of vibratory rollers. While the project would include pavement breaking and demolition activities, project demolition and construction would not include pile driving or the use of a vibratory roller. The nearest residential structures on the adjacent sites to the north and east, respectively, would be within 15 and 70 feet. At these distances, vibration levels would be up to 1.23 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV), which would exceed the City’s 0.2 inch per second PPV limit. However, according to the noise assessment, project demolition and construction activities would not be utilizing the vibratory roller (the only construction tool to exceed the City criterion of 0.20 in/sec PPV) and, therefore, would not be expected to produce continuous vibration levels exceeding the City’s standards for nearby sensitive receptors, such as those to the north and east of the project site.

To ensure the project construction does not exceed the City’s 0.2 inch per second PPV limit, the IS/MND includes a permit condition prohibiting the use of a vibratory roller and/or pile driving.

With implementation of the condition of approval, the project construction would not exceed the City’s threshold for significant impacts, and therefore, no additional measures such as the crack surveys identified in the comment are required. The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements.

Comment I15: 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.

Response I15: This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required. For informational purposes, the project includes a conforming rezoning from R-1-8 SingleFamily Residence Zoning District to CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District and a Special Use Permit. Pursuant to Section 20.120.100, if the Director determines that a petition for zoning or rezoning, filed pursuant to Section 20.120.020, conforms to the land use/transportation diagram of the General Plan, the Director may, in lieu of the Planning Commission hearing, prepare a report or recommendation for the City Council. Pursuant to Section 20.100.140 of the Zoning Code, whenever applications for the same site have been filed for one or more development permits or approvals required by this title, such development permit or approvals may be reviewed and acted on in a unified process. The unified process shall use the public hearing procedures required for the highest level permit or approval.

Permits and approvals are ranked as follows with the highest level permit or approval listed first:

Development Agreement; Rezoning, Major Encroachment Permit; Street or Easement Vacation; Conditional Use Permit; Subdivisions; Determination of public convenience or necessity; Planned Development Permit; Special Use Permit; Site Development Permit; Single-Family House Permitdirector's decision; development exception; development variance; tree removal permit-director's decision; single-family house permit-administrative decision; and tree removal permit-administrative decision.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
32 July 2021
As the project consists of a privately initiated Conforming Rezoning and a Special Use Permit, it would be heard directly at a City Council hearing.

Pursuant to Table 20-270 in Section 20.120.010, the Neighborhood Community Commercial designation has the following conforming zoning districts: CP Commercial Pedestrian, CN Commercial Neighborhood, and CG Commercial General. The project proposes to rezone the property from R-1-8, a non-conforming zoning district, to CP Commercial Pedestrian, a conforming zoning district.

Protests to the rezoning can be pursued by following the filing requirements in Section 20.120.400; zoning protests must be filed in writing with the Director no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifth day before the date of the opening of the Council’s hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance. If there is a majority protest by owners of sites bounded by fifty percent or more of the total length of the protest line, or by the owners of not less than fifty percent or more of the area of the subject property, the Director will follow the process outlined in Section 20.120.420.

Comment I16: 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.

Response I16: Receipt of comments was acknowledged on June 16, 2021 via email by City staff (Maira Blanco, environmental project manager) and included all commenters listed in this document. This formal Response to Comment will also be made available at least 10 days before the City Council hearing. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
33 July 2021
J. RESPONSE TO MONICA PAIGE JUMA
Comments J1 through J14: The first 14 comments submitted are identical to Comments I1 through I14.

Responses J1 through J14: Please refer to the responses provided under Responses I1 through I14.

Comment J15: 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
Response J15: For a conservative analysis, traffic counts collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (November 2019 and 2018) were used (see Appendix B of the Transportation Analysis – Appendix H). Similarly, the VMT analysis utilizes the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool which is based on pre-pandemic traffic forecasts using the City’s Traffic Forecasting Model. Therefore, the comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment J16: 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)? Response J16: Refer to Responses D3 and E3.

Comment J17: 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.

Response J17: Please refer to the response provided under Response I15.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
34 July 2021
K. RESPONSE TO STEPHEN JUMA
Comments K1 through K14: The first 14 comments submitted are identical to Comments I1 through I14.

Responses K1 through K14: Please refer to the response provided under Responses I1 through I14.

Comment K15: 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.

Response K15: Refer to the response provided under Response J15.

Comment K16: 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.

Response K16:

Comment K17: 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)? Response K17: Refer to the responses provided under D3, E3.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
35 July 2021
L. RESPONSE TO ALI S
Comment L1: 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.

Response L1: Hydrology and water quality is discussed in Section 4.10 of the Initial Study/MND. The use of water for dust suppression measures is covered in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of the Initial Study/MND. The use of water during construction activities is shortterm and is, therefore, not considered a significant use of water. Further, water is used to control dust on exposed surfaces during earth-moving activities, not during the entire construction period. The project is estimated to last 24 months. Refer to Response D8. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Initial Study/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment L2: 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.

Response L2: As stated in Response J15, the analysis relies on peak-hour traffic data that was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in November 2019 and 2018 (see Appendix B [Traffic Counts] of the Transportation Analysis, Appendix H of the IS/MND). Similarly, the VMT analysis utilizes the City’s VMT Evaluation Tool which is based on pre-pandemic traffic forecasts using the City’s Traffic Forecasting Model. Therefore, the comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements.

Per the Hotel Operations Plan (Attachment B), loading and delivery would be conducted onsite adjacent to the garage entry.

Comment L3: 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.

Response L3: The Initial Study/MND was prepared by the City of San José, with the assistance of various technical consultants to provide qualitative and quantitative analyses including EMC Planning Group, Illingworth & Rodkin, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Essel Environmental Engineering and Consulting, Bay Area Tree Specialists, Cornerstone Earth Group, and WJV Acoustics, all qualified in their field of expertise to prepare the studies. The appendices include technical reports which outline the methods used to conduct File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
36 July 2021
the technical studies. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Initial Study/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
37 July 2021
M. RESPONSE TO HAL STONE
Comment M1: 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.

Response M1: As discussed in Response D.3, the project is in conformance with the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District development standards and the aligns with the height requirements and type of development anticipated under the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Initial Study/MND.

No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
38 September 2021
N. RESPONSE TO MABEL CHENG
Comment N1: 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.

Response N1: As discussed in Responses F2 and I2, above, the parking reduction is not contingent on the height or use, but rather the project location. The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements
Comment N2: 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.

Response N2: The California Solar Rights Act (AB 3250, 1978) and the Solar Shade Act (AB 2321, 1978) only protect existing solar panels and solar easements from trees and shrubs planted after installation of the solar panels. There is no guaranteed solar access as it pertains to new building construction. Replacement trees would be planted along the project site boundary to increase the privacy of homes these trees (which include Crepe Myrtle, Western Redbud, Japanese Myrtle, and Carolina Laurel Cherry,) are not anticipated to grow beyond 30 feet in height. Given the replacement tree locations, the location of the sun, the spacing of the trees and their maximum anticipated heights, the replacement trees proposed for the project would not meet the threshold for violation under Section 25982 of the Act which prohibits tree owners from planting or allowing a newly planted tree or shrub to cast a shadow over more than ten percent of a solar collector on a neighboring property at any File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
39 September 2021
one time during the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact any existing or future solar systems on nearby properties. The City has no adopted thresholds for increased shading through most of the City (the exception being development in downtown San José that would increase shade on public parks) and does not identify the shading of private residences as a significant land use impact. Furthermore, the courts have determined that “California landowners do not have a right of access to air, light and view over adjoining property.” (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 492).

MS-16.2 in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Checklist refers to the establishment of a neighborhood-based distributed clean/renewable energy generation to improve energy security and to reduce the amount of energy wasted in transmitting electricity over long distances. The hotel project would install and maintain its own solar panels. This would not be a neighborhood-based clean energy plant as described in MS-16.2 and the Initial Study analysis is correct. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment N3: 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? Response N3: This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required. For informational purposes, the project meets the required minimum setbacks from adjacent properties: 20-foot rear setback, 5-foot side setback on the north and 6-foot side setback on the south.

Comment N4: I do not believe that this hotel is a good fit for the neighborhood, within the tight boundaries of two former residences.

Response N4: Refer to Responses D3 and I15.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
40 July 2021
O. RESPONSE TO HELEN MATSUMOTO
Comment O1: 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.

Response O1: Refer to Response I11.

Comment O2: 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.

Response O2: Refer to the response provided under Response C1.

Comment O3: 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.

Response O3:. Refer to Response C.1. In accordance with Sections 20.70.330 and 20.90.220 of the San José Municipal Code, which allows up to a 50% reduction in off-street parking if certain criteria are met, the proposed reduction in off-street parking can be allowed with the implementation and maintenance of a TDM plan. The project will be required to submit and have approved by the City its TDM program. The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements.

Comment O4: 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 File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
41 July 2021
one space.

Response O4: This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Per the Hotel Operations Plan (Attachment B)and as shown on the plan set (Appendix A of the IS/MND), deliveries will be made adjacent to the garage entry during permitted hours; the project permit would set the hours via a condition of approval consistent with the Zoning Ordinance – in commercial zoning districts, Section 20.40.500 restricts late night/outdoor activity for commercial uses within 150 feet of residentially zoned properties (no outdoor activity, including loading, sweeping, landscaping or maintenance shall occur within one-hundred fifty feet of any residentially zoned property between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 a.m.).

Comment O5: 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.” Response O5: Refer to the response provided under Response C3.

Comment O6: 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.

Response O6: Refer to Responses D4 and I7.

Comment O7: 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.

Response O7: This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Per the Hotel Operations Plan (Attachment B), valet parking operations are located in the basement level.

Upon guest arrival, hotel staff will greet the guest and park the hotel guest’s vehicle. Upon departure, hotel valet staff will then retrieve the guest’s vehicle.

Comment O8: 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.

Response O8: Per the Impact Discussion in Section 4.13.6 (Noise) of the Initial Study/MND, significant construction noise impacts would occur if a project is located within File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
42 July 2021
500 feet of residential uses or 200 feet of commercial or office uses and uses construction equipment or involves construction activity generating substantial noise such as demolition, grading, excavation, pile driving, impact equipment, etc., for a period of more than twelve months. As stated in the Initial Study/MND, project construction is anticipated to last 24 months, therefore, a mitigation measure requiring the project applicant to prepare a construction noise logistics plan was applied to bring the impact to a less than significant level. The noise logistics plan would consist of limiting construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, designation a noise disturbance coordinator, and include measures to reduce noise emanating from the site. Under the same section, the Initial Study/MND also includes a discussion on the generation of ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise levels. The highest levels of construction-related vibrations are typically associated with pile driving and the use of vibratory rollers. While the project would include pavement breaking and demolition activities, project demolition and construction would not require pile driving or the use of vibratory rollers. As such, the project permit will include a condition of approval which precludes both pile-driving and vibratory rollers from all phases of construction. The Noise section of the Initial Study/MND relied on the noise study titled 1212-1224 Winchester Boulevard Hotel San Jose, CA Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by WJV Acoustics and dated September 17, 2020 (Appendix G of the Initial Study/MND). Response to noise and vibration has also been provided under Response I14.

Comment O9: 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.

Response O9: Refer to Responses D3 and H1.

Comment O10: 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.

Response O10: Pedestrian flow and traffic are addressed in Section 4.17 of the Initial Study and noise is addressed in Section 4.13 and Response D4 which address fire protection services.

Comment O11: We are very concerned for the welfare of our neighborhood and truly do not see File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
43 July 2021
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.

Response O11: This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
44 July 2021
P. RESPONSE TO JENNIFER MUSCHA
Comment P1: 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?
Response P1: As stated in Section 3.0 (Project Description) and Section 4.11 (Land Use) of the IS/MND, the Neighborhood Community Commercial designation and the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District are commercially-focused. As discussed in Response D3, the proposed hotel project is in conformance with the development standards, FAR, and height allowance in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment P2: 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.

Response P2: Council Policy 5-1 “Transportation Analysis Policy” replaced Council Policy 5-3, “Transportation Impact Policy” as the policy for transportation development review in the City of San Jose. This policy aligns the City’s transportation analysis with California Senate Bill 743 and the City’s Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. The Policy establishes the thresholds for transportation impacts under the CEQA, removing transportation Level of Service (LOS) and replacing it with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Vehicle queuing as described by the commenter would fall under a level of service analysis. As stated in the Transportation Analysis (TA) (Appendix H of the Initial Study/MND), a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) was included in the analysis which consisted of an intersection operations analysis to quantify the operations of intersections and to identify potential negative effects due to the addition of project traffic; however, potential adverse impacts identified by the LTA are not considered CEQA impacts. Nonetheless, the intersection operations evaluation determined that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on intersection operations: “The operations analysis shows that all of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, based on the Cities of San Jose and Campbell, and CMP intersection operations standard of LOS D and E, respectively, under background conditions, background plus project, and cumulative plus project conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours” (page iii, Transportation Analysis, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., dated June 18, 2020. The comment provides no substantive information in regard to the project’s effect on traffic impacts per CEQA requirements.

Comment P3: I am NOT in support of a hotel in this proposed location and hope that the city does not approve its development.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
45 July 2021
Response P3: As described in Response I15, the project will go before City Council. Both hearings are public hearings; hearing notices will be mailed to property owners within 1,000 of the project site. The public hearing is an additional opportunity for public input. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft Initial Study/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
46 July 2021
Q. RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
Comment Q1: 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/building-andrenovation/overview/overview.page.

Response Q1: As stated in Section 4.19 (Utilities) of the IS/MND, the applicant will comply with all application requirements, including those of utility systems. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment Q2: 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.

Response Q2: This project is not part of a larger project. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

Comment Q3: 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
Response Q3: The applicant will comply with all application requirements, including those for utility systems. The project would be required to present a construction plan to the Building Department for review – this type of issue would be flagged at the Building Permit stage and the project applicant would coordinate with the appropriate utility company as necessary. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
47 July 2021
R. RESPONSE TO JOHN GRISWOLD
Comment R1: 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 pro-business 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.

Response R1: Refer to Responses under D3 and E3.

Comment R2: 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 non-residential 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.

Response R2: As described in Section 3.0 (Project Description) of the IS/MND, trees will be planted along the project frontage (South Winchester Boulevard) and along the eastern border of the project site as a barrier between the proposed project and existing residences.

Refer to Sheets L.01 through L.04 (Appendix A of the IS/MND) of the project plans for the landscape plans showing what types of trees are planned and where they would be located.

On the eastern property line, some trees will remain and other trees with a height potential of 25 feet will be planted. The plan set would be approved with the Special Use Permit and would become part of the approved permit package to ensure the project is built according to plan. The existing vegetation that currently serves as a privacy shield would be kept in place or replaced with other vegetation to be used as a privacy shield. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required.

File Nos. C19-031 & SP20-016
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
Public Comments, Responses, and Text Changes to IS/MND
48 July 2021
S. RESPONSE TO CHAIRWOMAN QUIRINA GEARY, TAMIEN NATION
Comment S1: 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 Type of environmental review necessary
X 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:
(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.

San Jose City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

San Jose City Council
August 23, 2022