Exhibit E - Response to Environmental Determination Appeal — San Jose City Council, August 23, 2022 (part 1 of 6)

Exhibit E - Response to Environmental Appeal
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (SP20-016) 1 Section 1 - Introduction
The 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated May 21, 2021, was publicly circulated for comments between Wednesday, May 26, 2021 and Tuesday, June 15, 2021. During the circulation period, the City of San José received 19 comments. Formal Responses to those comments (RTC) and Errata to the circulated IS/MND were completed and posted on the City’s website prior to any public hearing. Collectively, the formal Response to Comments and Text Changes (RTC), Errata, and the circulated IS/MND are all part of the IS/MND approved by the City Council on January 11, 2022. Although the City Council only approved the Conforming Rezoning on January 11, 2022 (Ordinance No. 30713), the adopted IS/MND (Resolution No. 80348) evaluated the entirety of the project, including the conforming rezoning and the project description in the Special Use Permit (File No. SP20-016). Because there were no changes to the Special Use Permit since the January 11, 2022 hearing, a Determination of Consistency was determined to be the appropriate CEQA clearance for the Special Use Permit heard by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on March 23, 2022 at a scheduled public hearing.

Following the approval of the project by the Planning Director on March 23, 2022, Gaz Salihue, Shehana Marikar, and other neighbors on behalf of the Hamann Park neighborhood filed a request for appeal of the Planning Director’s decision.

The City of San José Planning Division has prepared the following Responses to Project Appellant Comments received on the Determination of Consistency with the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project IS/MND. The Responses to Comments, which are included in this document, together with the Determination of Consistency, IS/MND, IS/MND appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), comprise the Responses to Project Appellant Comments for use by the City of San José in its review and consideration of the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project.

Document Organization
This document is organized into two sections:
• Section 1—Introduction.
• Section 2—Responses to Appeal of Planning Director Approval (Environmental Determination): The letters received regarding the Determination of Consistency, IS/MND and responses thereto are included in this section.

The Responses to Project Appellant Comments includes the following contents:

EXHIBIT A – Appeal of Environmental Determination
EXHIBIT B – Response to Special Use Permit Appeal

EXHIBIT C -
• Determination of Consistency (March 2022)
• IS/MND and appendices (May 2021)
• Responses to Written Comments (October 2021)
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Section 2 - Responses to Appeal of Director approval
On January 11, 2022, the City Council of the City of San José adopted the 1212-1224 Winchester Hotel Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (Resolution No. 80348) and the approved a Conforming Rezoning (File No. C19-031) at a scheduled hearing. The action to consider the approval of a Special Use Permit (File No. SP20-016) by the City Council was dropped from the January 11, 2022 agenda by the applicant. Because the 1212-1224 Winchester Hotel Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated the entirety of the project (i.e., Conforming Rezoning and the Special Use Permit), and no significant changes were made to the Special Use Permit, a Determination of Consistency with the IS/MND was determined to be the appropriate CEQA clearance for the subsequent Director’s Hearing to hear the Special Use Permit. Following the adoption of a Determination of Consistency with the IS/MND and the Special Use Permit, planning project (File No. SP20-016) by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (Director) on March 23, 2022, Gaz Salihue, Shehana Marikar, and other neighbors on behalf of the Hamann Park neighborhood, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of the project (permit appeal) and adoption of the Determination of Consistency with the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project IS/MND (environmental determination appeal).

The original appeal letters are provided in Exhibit A to the City Council memo. Detailed appeal letter comments and staff responses are discussed in Section 2.1.4 below. None of the appeal letters raised comments that result in the need to reconsider the Determination of Consistency as the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) on which the DOC is based, was publicly circulated from May 26, 2021 to June 15, 2021 and all comments were thoroughly addressed in a Response to Comments and Text Changes document posted to the environmental review website in October 2021, prior to the hearings. The reasons for the environmental appeal are a combination of previously raised issues during the public circulation of the IS/MND and at the public hearings (City Council hearing held on January 11, 2022 and the Director’s hearing held on March 23, 2022). These include:
• Project’s inconsistency with the General Plan Designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial
• Project’s inconsistency with the with the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan (land use and development standards)
• Fire Safety
• Pedestrian/Bicyclist Safety
• Guest and Valet drop off/pick-up zone operations
• Traffic on South Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue • Rooftop solar
• Impact of the project’s new impervious surface
Although responses were previously provided in a formal Response to Comments (October 2021), further information is responded to in this document for the full administrative record. Each comment in the letter has been numbered so that comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is re-printed, followed by the corresponding staff response.
2 Authors Author Code
Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar; Tom and Gail Morman; Hal Stone; Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams; Brian and Helen Matsumoto; Mike and Galina Drabkin; Mabel Cheng ………………………..GROUP LETTER Gaz Salihue & Shehana Marikar.................................................................................SALIHUE/MARIKAR Jeffrey Williams ....................................................................................................................... WILLIAMS Mabel Cheng ................................................................................................................................CHENG Brian & Helen Matsumoto .................................................................................................MATSUMOTO While most of the issues in these comment letters were previously raised during the IS/MND public review period (May 26, 2021 to June 15, 2021), it should be noted that the following new comments and issues are raised in the environmental appeal letter:
• The Mitigation, Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for the hotel project at 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard (attached to the January 11, 2022 City Council Agenda packet and fully incorporated into the City Council adopted Resolution) is not the applicable MMRP for the project, but is a MMRP for an entirely different project; • the Hotel Operations Plan does not list security personnel on employee staff list; • the expanded driveway width along South Winchester Boulevard from 27 feet to 43 feet was not appropriately analyzed; and
• the project’s impervious coverage would negatively impact ground water supplies.

Where comments are specific to the appeal of the planning permit and not pertinent to the environmental determination appeal, the responses below will refer the reader to the SUP Appeal Response memo (See Exhibit B).

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Comments and Response
Comments below are re-printed verbatim from the appeal letters.

GROUP LETTER
The comment letter dated March 27, 2022, from Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar, Tom and Gail Morman, Hal Stone, Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams, Brian and Helen Matsumoto, Mike and Galina Drabkin, and Mabel Cheng is referred to as GROUP LETTER herein.

GROUP LETTER Comment - 1
3/27/2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Appeal
Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd, San Jose Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

We are residents of the Hamann Park neighborhood that would be impacted by this project.

Many of us worked with the City in developing the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and were supportive of this engagement. We are aware of the City’s economic goals and tax base objectives and very much support the City’s efforts to attain some balance in the tax base/services delivery.

We also support hotel development, but this site stands out as inappropriate. This site has smaller, shallow parcels that will have a negative environmental impact on the neighborhood. Our concerns are listed below along with attached documents prepared by residents addressing these issues.

GROUP LETTER Response -1
This comment is an introductory statement regarding the environmental appeal on the basis that the project site is inappropriate for the hotel development and would have a negative environmental impact on the neighborhood followed by listed concerns. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to the environmental analysis of the IS/MND, it does not identify any significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the IS/MND’s analysis or conclusions, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures not already disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, nor does it present new information that would require preparation of a new CEQA document. Therefore, no further response is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 2
4 1.The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the hotel project at 1212-1224 S Winchester attached to the January 11, 2022 City Council Agenda packet and fully incorporated into the City Council adopted Resolution is not the report for the subject property, but is a report for an entirely different project.

We believe that the City Council’s January 11,2022 actions on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) were not supported by fully accurate documentation and that this matter should go back to the City Council for a rehearing. Since the zoning action was based on an inaccurate MND, it follows from our perspective that the rezoning action by the City Council should be redone as well.

GROUP LETTER Response – 2
Staff stated for the record at the March 23, 2022 Director’s hearing that the incorrect Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution (No. 80348) for the project’s rezoning from the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District (File No. C19-031), approved at the January 11, 2022 City Council hearing. This was a clerical error that has been corrected. This error has been remedied and, therefore, reapproving the rezoning ordinance is not required.

As Staff stated at the Director’s Hearing, the impacts and mitigation measures for the 1212-1224 Winchester Hotel Project were appropriately disclosed in the publicly circulated IS/MND. The 1212-1224 Winchester Hotel Project IS/MND, adopted by City Council, was accurately described in the Staff Report for the Rezoning and the Resolution; with only the incorrect MMRP attached.

To be clear, the posted and circulated MND was accurate and enumerated all of the significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures to lessen those impacts to a less than significant level. The project’s MMRP was signed by the applicant and would require compliance prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.

MMRP compliance is a condition of approval for the subject project in the development permit, File No. SP20-016.

Finally, the City Council’s action on the rezoning ordinance and the environmental clearance is separate from the Special Use Permit, File No. SP20-16 and the DOC determined to be the appropriate CEQA clearance. The correct MMRP is attached to the appeal hearing documents.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 3

2. NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, the land use designation assigned to the two block section of Winchester Blvd, which is the location of 1212-1224 S Winchester. The Winchester Urban Village Plan describes the Neighborhood/Community Commercial” Land Use Designation and why it is applied to 1212-1224 S Winchester as follows: “This designation is applied to smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester Boulevard and abutting single-family residences. Given the City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project size of the parcels, parking requirements in the zoning code and the urban design step down policies, these properties are appropriate for the location of smaller commercial businesses. Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses should have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community. These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate form that supports walking, transit use and public interaction. Also, this designation supports the neighborhood servicing retail and small businesses along Winchester Boulevard.” (Winchester Blvd Urban Village Plan p.19) Based on the way Land Use was planned and designated in the Winchester Urban Village, we believe that the hotel project has a significant negative impact on the Land Use and Planning resource.

GROUP LETTER Response - 3
The commenters correctly identified the project’s land use designation as Neighborhood/Community Commercial; however, the commenter does not specificy what the issue is that will cause a significant negative impact. As discussed above, the IS/MND was adopted by the City Council on January 11, 2022 (Resolution No. 80348). The IS/MND was publicly circulated from May 26, 2021 to June 15, 2021. All comments were thoroughly responded to in a formal Response to Comments and Text Changes document published in October 2021. Direct responses regarding land use and the project’s consistency with the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan is discussed in the Response to the SUP appeal. In brief, as described in Response D3 of the Response to Comments and Text Changes document , the proposed hotel project is in conformance with the development standards, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and height allowed in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village for lots designated Neighborhood/Community Commercial. As noted in the comment, the Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation supports a broad range of commercial activity and is not limited to the types of commercial uses described in the land use designations in the General Plan and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. A hotel is a commercial use that may serve local areas by providing accommodations for visiting families, friends, and workers in the surrounding area. Further, the City has historically approved hotels with Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designations within Urban Villages, including hotels in City Council District 1 (i.e., Aloft on Moorpark Avenue and Hampton Inn on South De Anza Boulevard).

As described in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, Guiding Principle Number 5 (Compatible with Existing Neighborhoods) states: “…new development within the Urban Village should be well integrated within, and respectful of, and compatible with adjacent existing neighborhoods. Policies and guidelines in this Plan address the various conditions and adjacencies within and along the perimeter of the Urban Village. Considering such critical factors including as [sic] privacy, light and shade and shadow, the Plan specifies heights, building massing requirements, and transitions to shape a vibrant harmonious urban village. This Plan provides guidelines for new development to taper down in height from Winchester Boulevard to the adjacent single-family neighborhoods.” As described in Section 3.0 (Project 6 Description) of the IS/MND, the proposed project would be taller than nearby residences; however, the project meets the height restrictions and setbacks of the Commercial Pedestrian CP zoning district. Single-family residences to the north of the project site 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. There are no balconies proposed to face the residences to the north or east. The portion of the proposed hotel facing residences to the east would have outdoor planters to obscure views from the hotel 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, as required by the height transition standards of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The step back design of the building would reduce shadows cast by the hotel onto surrounding properties and would assist in maintaining some privacy for existing adjacent residences.

Although the comment does not appear to address the CEQA analyses, for the purposes of CEQA, there are two primary questions to consider regarding land use and planning impacts: 1. Would the project divide an established community? 2.

Would the project cause any significant environmental impacts due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? As detailed in Section 4.11 of the IS/MND, the analysis found that the project would not result in a significant CEQA Land Use and Planning impact. This finding is based on the facts that the project is considered an infill/redevelopment project and is consistent with the surrounding mix of land uses.

No component of the project includes physical division (such as a barrier) of an established community. The proposed project would conform with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village’s Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation. The project has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.47 which complies with the maximum 3.5 FAR. The proposed project’s design is consistent with the design standards identified in the Urban Village Plan by way of the materials used and architectural articulation on the proposed building (Winchester Urban Village Policy DS-9), the appearance of different elements in the project’s frontage through height variation and facades (Winchester Urban Village Policies DG-25 and DG-24), and the use of public art at the front of the project (Winchester Urban Village Policy 4-12). Therefore, this comment does not address the adequacy of the Determination of Consistency. No further CEQA analysis is required.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

GROUP LETTER Comment – 4

3. The Winchester Blvd Urban Village Plan describes the “Urban Village Commercial” Land Use Designation on the same page as Neighborhood Community Commercial: “The Urban Village Commercial land use designation is applied to properties on Winchester and Moorpark adjacent to, and on the south side of Interstate 280. This area was identified as an opportunity for new commercial development that could build off the success and vibrancy of the commercial development in the adjacent Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project This designation supports commercial activity that is more intensive than that of the Neighborhood Urban/Community Commercial land use designation. Appropriate uses in this designation include a variety of commercial uses, mid-rise office buildings and hotels …” (Winchester Blvd Urban Village Plan p.19) The Winchester Urban Village Plan clearly states what area and what land use is intended for facilities like hotels. We believe this has a significant negative impact on the Urban Village Land Use and Planning resource.

GROUP LETTER Response – 4
Both the Neighborhood/Community Commercial and the Urban Village Commercial land use designations in the Winchester Urban Village Plan allow for a very broad range of commercial uses. While the Urban Village Commercial land use designation specifically names hotels as a potential commercial use, its omission in the Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use description does not preclude the use from Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation. The enumerated uses are not exhaustive and only meant to illustrate possible uses. As stated above in GROUP LETTER Response 3, this is not a CEQA impact because the proposed project would conform with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village’s Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation and would not result in the physical division of an established community. Therefore, this comment does not address the adequacy of the Determination of Consistency and therefore, no new environmental document needs to be prepared. No further CEQA analysis is required.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

GROUP LETTER Comment – 5

4. SECURITY - The Hotel Operations Plan (Project Documents; dated 9/27/21 lists “Cameras plus security guard (s) as needed”. Not one security guard is listed on the Employee Staff list. (Project Documents, “Response to Comment”, the last 2 pages, labeled Attachment B) We believe that a security staff is necessary for a 119 room hotel with bar in the close vicinity to Castlemont Elementary School, Bethel Church, a sub-acute center next door, and our residential neighborhood. We believe not having a security staff is a significant safety concern.

GROUP LETTER Response – 5
This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. No further CEQA analysis is required. While not part of CEQA analysis staff notes, a security guard is not a Zoning Ordinance requirement for the use and operation of a hotel. The project would have staff on site at all times and would provide security cameras on site. Based on the Operations Plan provided, a security guard would be provided on site. The hotel would also provide security cameras on site. If the provision of an additional security guard requires additional parking, the applicant would be required to amend their Transportation Demand Management Plan with a Special 8 Use Permit Amendment. Additionally, a security guard is not a Zoning Ordinance requirement for the use and operation of a hotel.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

GROUP LETTER Comment – 6

5. FIRE SAFETY – In 2002, ashes fell onto the neighborhood from the Santana Row fire, which resulted in over $100 million in damages. According to OSHA, “The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus...ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible.” These developments on appropriately sized lots along Winchester have clearly marked fire lanes: A Grace Subacute, 1250 S. Winchester; Lynhaven Apartments, 919 S.

Winchester; Villa Cortina, 801 S. Winchester. The Winchester Hotel Plan on the shallow lots leave no room for fire lanes; instead of fire lanes, hose paths are proposed around the sides and back as part of an Aerial Fire Plan (OSHA manual p14; Mercury News article on Santana Row fire). In a Memorandum dated 10/11/19 to Planning Dept Project Manager Michelle Flores from Gordana Sabatelli, San Jose Fire Department, she wrote that “The applicant has the option to apply for a Fire Department Variance to mitigate deficiencies noted in this Section. The Variance must be approved prior to Planning Approval.” Why has the Variance been deferred when it was clearly stated by the SJ Fire Dept that it “must be approved prior to Planning Approval”. The use of hose paths instead of Fire Access Lanes is a change to what other developments along Winchester Blvd have complied with up to this point. We believe this is a safety concern.

GROUP LETTER Response - 6
The Public Services Resource, Section 4.15.4, of the IS/MND, includes a discussion about whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with provision or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objections. In sum, the project would not require the construction of new fire protection facilities and existing fire stations would respond to any fires that occur at the project site; two fire stations are located less than two miles away.

Additionally, the Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.9 of the IS/MND analyzed the project’s impact on emergency response plans and evacuation plans. The project would comply with all required Building and Fire Code requirements (including compliance through the Fire Department’s variance process) and therefore, the proposed development would not result in a physical barrier/impediment to emergency services. The IS/MND also concluded that the project would not result in an impact to the operation of City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project emergency services or emergency evacuation plans. Project review and fire variances are further discussed in the Responses to the SUP Appeal (Exhibit B). Finally, as further discussed in the Transportation/Traffic Section 4.17 of the IS/MND, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

The proposed project includes aerial access for fire apparatus vehicles at project frontage on South Winchester Boulevard, 29.2 feet from the proposed building. The California Fire Code requires a distance between 15 to 30 feet. Final plans would be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the project adheres to all California Fire Code requirements. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND or the Determination of Consistency. Therefore, a new environmental document does not need to be prepared. No further CEQA analysis is required.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

GROUP LETTER Comment – 7

6. PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST RISK FROM DRIVEWAYS CROSSING THE SIDEWALK FOR THE

GARAGE AND LOADING ZONE
Urban Village Vision: “Parking structures should not be visible from Winchester Boulevard.” and “Reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts by minimizing driveways along the Primary Pedestrian Routes.” (Winchester Blvd Urban Village, DG-56 & DG-62) The Winchester Hotel Plan: Parking Garage faces Winchester and driveways for both the Garage and the “Delivery and Loading Zone” cross the sidewalk. (Winchester Hotel Plan, pA.08, Rev-1; 11/01/2019) “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 not impact traffic operations on Winchester Boulevard… 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.” (Project Documents, Appendix H, Transportation Analysis, p.46) Hexagon Transportation Analysis was working off the Hotel Plan dated 11/01/2019, which did not take into account the adjacent driveway for the on-site Delivery and Loading Zone for small trucks. We believe this is a safety concern that was not analyzed by the Hexagon Transportation Analysis.

GROUP LETTER Response – 7
As described in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 4.13 of the IS/MND, a total of 66 vehicle parking spaces are located within an underground parking basement. The basement level is underground and therefore is not visible from Winchester Boulevard and is consistent with Policy DG-56 of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan (WBUVP) which states that parking structures should not be visible from Winchester 10 Boulevard and that structures should be underground, wrapped with habitable uses at the ground floor or fully screened with decorative screens or public art.

Winchester Boulevard is identified as a Primary Pedestrian Route in the WBUVP. The proposed project would install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard, consistent with the WBUVP. 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. There currently are no sidewalks along the project’s frontage on Winchester Boulevard. Therefore, the project will improve pedestrian travel along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. Per the Hotel Operations Plan, all loading and pick-up/drop-off activity will occur completely inside the garage, reducing potential conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. The Transportation Analysis,The Transportation Analysis dated June 18, 2020 (Appendix H of the IS/MND), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, states that the loading zone may have to be moved on-site per the City’s discretion. As noted in the comment, the loading and delivery zone was moved on-site and is adjacent to the driveway entrance to the underground garage. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic Section 4.17 of the IS/MND, vehicles exiting the project site driveway on South Winchester Boulevard would be able to see approaching traffic on northbound South Winchester Boulevard at least to Payne Avenue located approximately 450 feet to the south. Therefore, the Transportation Analysis concludes that the project driveway on South Winchester Boulevard would meet the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials minimum stopping sight distance standards. The recommendation to have the project include visible and/or audible warning signals at the garage entrances to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage, is also being incorporated into the project. No further CEQA analysis is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 8

7. Guest and Valet Drop/Pick-up Zone Operations
To mitigate traffic issues related to the use of twenty-four two car mechanical parking lifts, the recommendation made by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (“Hexagon”) in their 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis (“Transportation Analysis”), that a minimum of two to three valet staff would be required on site during the peak morning and afternoon periods, was not followed by the developer.

This issue which was listed in Item 4.17 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Report as having a Non-CEQA Effect is not correct. The Developer’s decision to include only one parking valet in their Operations Plan has a direct negative effect on the following TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CEQA related areas; Pedestrian Access, Emergency Access, Bicycle Lanes, Traffic Safety, and Delivery Access. The impact of this deviation from Hexagon’s recommended mitigation measures has not been evaluated by Hexagon nor is included in the current Mitigated Negative Declaration Report.

GROUP LETTER Response – 8
In the Transportation/Traffic, Section 4.17 of the IS/MND, Guest and Valet Drop-off/Pick-up Zone Operations are included under “non-CEQA effects” City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project which means it is included in the IS/MND for informational purposes only.

These are included in the “non-CEQA effects” discussion because they pertain to on-site circulation and would not result in an environmental project impact based on the thresholds established in the City’s Transportation Analysis Policy (City Council Policy 5-1).Overall, the Transportation Analysis concluded, “On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with the City of San Jose Zoning Code and generally accepted traffic engineering standards (i.e., Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017), as amended. 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. “While operation of the parking lifts could momentarily block on-site circulation within the parking garage, this blockage was determined to not substantially impact the pinch point of the project’s interface with the public right-of-way at the driveway entrance. Additionally, this on-site circulation blockage would not cause negative impacts to the emergency access to and around the site, pedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation, traffic safety, or deliver access since the temporary blockage would be within the parking garage.

Additional information regarding the operation and circulation analysis is in the Response to the SUP appeal. This comment does raise new issues not analyzed in the IS/MND or the Determination of Consistency. No further CEQA analysis is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 9

8. 27’ WIDE DRIVEWAY AREA CROSSING THE SIDEWALK EXPANDED TO 43’ “Vehicular access to the subterranean garage would be provided from a right in/right out” driveway adjacent to a second driveway for small trucks adjacent to the loading and delivery zone to the south. (Memorandum, City Council Staff Report, p.3; driveways posted on Winchester Urban Village Plan A.08) Hexagon Transportation Analysis did not take this into consideration. As shown on page 47, it was relying on the Winchester Hotel Plan dated 11/1/19, which did not have the second driveway. (The Hexagon Transportation Analysis addressed the Drop-Off and Load Space areas that were being located on the street.) We believe that the Hexagon Transportation Analysis should have been updated to assess the impact on pedestrian/bicycle safety with the additional vehicles crossing the sidewalk and the added congestion due to the Drop Off Center inside the garage as to how that will affect more vehicles backing up onto the sidewalk. We believe this is a safety concern that was not analyzed by the Hexagon Transportation Analysis. 12 GROUP LETTER Response – 9
See GROUP LETTER Response-7. No further CEQA analysis is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 10

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) (Transportation Analysis, p 46) How does the Planning Dept assess the impact of this on pedestrian and bicycle activity? How will this impact the “Potential Mid-Block Crossing” located at the southern edge of 1224 S Winchester? (Urban Village Plan, Figure 4-1, p35) This is an impediment to pedestrian enjoyment and safety.

GROUP LETTER Response – 10
The Transportation Analysis (Appendix H of the IS/MND) prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants included a signal warrant analysis to determine if a signal would need to be installed due to the hotel project. As stated in the analysis, a peak-hour traffic signal warrant check was conducted for the unsignalized intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Fireside Drive. The results indicated 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 and that with the addition of project traffic, the 95th percentile vehicle queues could be accommodated by the storage provided at all study locations. In accordance with CEQA and the City of San Jose’s Transportation Analysis Policy 5-1, it was determined the project would not conflict with any circulation system programs, plans, ordinances or policies. As discussed in the IS/MND and Response to Comments and Text Changes, Policy 5-1 established the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric for transportation impacts, replacing the Level of Service (LOS) metric. 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 City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project 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).

Nonetheless, the Transportation Analysis did include pedestrian, bicycle and transit analysis under the Local Traffic Analysis (LTA) which is beyond the analysis needed for CEQA (i.e., no VMT impact, therefore, no transportation impact). As noted in the LTA section of the Transportation Analysis, 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 would install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. The Urban Design Framework for the Winchester Urban Village contains features that strengthen the connectivity to and from Winchester Boulevard, including several potential mid-block crossings (proposed at least every 300 feet). Although a mid-block crossing is identified south of Fireside Drive, it has not been identified as a project component, as it is beyond the project site and scope. This aside, the Transportation Analysis would not be affected because it properly accounts for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project. The mid-block crossing will be analyzed with future redevelopment near the crossing. This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND or Determination of Consistency. No further CEQA analysis is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 11

10. COMPATIBILITY OF BUILDING HEIGHT, PLACEMENT AND SCALE One of the major elements of the Urban Design Framework Placement and Scale (Urban Village P.51).
a) Although a 6 story 65 ft structure requires a 40 ft setback next to residential properties, the Winchester Hotel Plan reduces the height by 5 inches to move 50% closer to the rear fence, now a 20-foot setback. b) Rear/Side setbacks apply when located adjacent to Residential/Neighborhood or Urban Residential land use designations. Because the Urban Village Plan changed the Land Use Designation along this section of Winchester to Neighborhood/Community Commercial, the hotel plan is being allowed a 6 ft side setback next to the family next door. They have owned their home over 30 yrs. (Urban Village Plan, p.64) Therefore, we believe that this project does have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.

GROUP LETTER Response – 11
14 This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND or provide evidence that there will be a substantial adverse effect on human beings as a result of the project. The potential impacts associated with the project’s construction and operation are discussed in the IS/MND; all identified significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. No further CEQA analysis is required. The project review process and project’s conformance with the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and Zoning Ordinance is discussed in the Response to Permit Appeal (Exhibit B).

GROUP LETTER Comment – 12

11. DISINCENTIVE FOR NEW ROOFTOP SOLAR ON ADJACENT HOMES – See Season Shade Diagrams (Winchester Hotel Plan, p. A.28, A.29) “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…”(Project Documents, Response to Comment, Response N2, p.38) Therefore, with regard as to whether solar panels would be possible for adjacent neighbors, we believe this project has substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

GROUP LETTER Response – 12
Solar electricity, specifically solar panels on rooftops, was addressed in the Response to Comments and Text Changes to IS/MND (October 2021). As noted by the commenter, in Response of the Response to Comments, Staff indicated that 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. 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). Finally, the comment does not provide any substantial evidence that lack of access to solar panels would directly or indirectly adversely impact human beings. No further CEQA analysis is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 13

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project 8); See Table 2 of Environmental Checklist showing Impervious Site Coverage at 91% (Initial Study, p. 12); See Winchester Hotel Plan, p. C3.0 to C4.2, regarding Grading, and Utility Plan, Draining, Stormwater Control Plan, Media Filtration Details. Details include information on operation and maintenance of the Contech Catch Basin Storm Filter. With significant yearly droughts becoming more frequent, we believe that 91% impervious coverage does have significant negative impact on lost ground water. Is there any information stating how much water the engineered storm drain system would drain from the site? GROUP LETTER Response – 13
As detailed in the project description, Section 3.2 of the IS/MND, 27,393 square feet or 91 percent of the 0.69-acre project site, would be impervious.

This impervious coverage is more conservative than the actual impervious coverage identified on the project’s plan set. Per the Stormwater Control Plan in the project’s plan set, 14,989 square feet of impervious coverage would be replaced and the project would create an additional 5,583 square feet of impervious area, totaling 20,572 square feet of impervious area or approximately 68 percent of the site and 2,683 square feet of pervious area.

The project is subject to the City’s Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy (Council Policy 6-29) which requires implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which includes site design measures, source control measures and numerically-sized Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures to minimize stormwater pollutant discharges. Per the project plans, on-site treatment control measures include bioretention lined with underdrain and media filter system resulting in 23,255 square feet of drainage area to limit the flow of stormwater off site.

The project is located in a non-Hydromodification Management area and is therefore, not required to comply with the City’s Post-Construction Hydromodification Management Policy (Council Policy 8-14) which applies to projects creating and/or replacing one acre or more of impervious surface and are located in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are less than 65 percent impervious or are “Under Review.”
As discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality Section 4.10 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The project would not include any wells or ground water pumps and as described above, the project’s increase in impervious surfaces would be required to comply with the City’s Urban Construction Runoff Management Policy (Council Policy 6-29) to minimize and treat stormwater runoff. This comment does not 16 identify any new information or impacts and therefore, no further CEQA analysis is required.

GROUP LETTER Comment – 14
We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a positive response to our objections to the negative environmental impact of the hotel plan on our neighborhood. We hope to participate in a process that results in an appropriate development that fulfills the vision of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village, a project that meets the City’s economic and tax base growth objectives, an acceptable outcome for the Developer and the creation of appropriate smaller commercial businesses with a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community.

GROUP LETTER Response – 14
The comment is a concluding statement with no specific CEQA concern to respond to.

Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar (SALIHUE/MARIKAR) Letter The March 25, 2022 comment letter from Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar is referred to as SALIHUE/MARIKAR herein.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-1
Dear Honorable mayor and City Council Members:

We are the residents of the Hamann Park neighborhood that would be impacted by this project. Many of us worked with the City in developing the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and were supportive of this engagement. We are aware of the City’s economic goals and tax base objectives, and very much support the City’s efforts to attain some balance in the tax base/services delivery.

However, we object to several aspects of the hotel proposal for this site, and appeal to the Council to review recent determinations. Specifically, today let me draw your attention to two topics: Shadow on neighboring homes and lighting for hotel. These issues were raised during the meeting referenced above and in written comments, but were not directly or adequately addressed.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-1
This comment is an introductory statement and highlights two topics of concern:
shadow effects on neighboring properties and lighting. Written comments submitted during the IS/MND public circulation period regarding shade and shadow were responded to adequately in the City’s “Responses to Public Comments and Text Changes” document dated October 2021, in response D1. In summary, Appendix A of the IS/MND included a Shade Study which identified the shadows that would be cast by the proposed project. While increased shadows would be cast by the project due City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project to its increased height, the new shade and shadows would not impede the use of the surrounding properties and were not identified as significant impacts under CEQA.

The project’s exterior lighting is discussed in Aesthetics Section 4.0 of the IS/MND.

The project’s compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, Design Guidelines, and City Council Policies would ensure no lighting impacts occur. Specifically, per Section

20.40.540 of the San José Municipal Code, lighting adjacent to residential properties shall be shielded and reflected away from adjacent residential uses; the project would be required to comply with this zoning requirement. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Council Policy 4-2 (Lighting Policy) and Council Policy 4-3 (Private Outdoor Lighting Policy). As discussed in the IS/MND, the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site as the proposed project includes security lights and other nighttime lights. All outdoor lighting would be shielded to direct light downwards to ensure that lighting does not spill over onto nearby residential properties, consistent with the City’s regulations. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on day and nighttime views would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to the environmental analysis of the IS/MND, it does not identify any significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the IS/MND’s analysis or conclusions, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures not already disclosed in the Determination of Consistency, IS/MND and associated appendices. Therefore, no further response is required.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-2
The Winchester Urban Village Plan states
The Winchester Urban Village Plan creates specific policies concerning the interface between new high density development and the lower density residential neighborhoods. The Envision San Jose 2040 PEIR acknowledges the importance of a sensitive transition at these interfaces “to protect the quality and integrity of the neighborhoods....”.

The proposed project by its very nature and size completely ignores the Envison San Jose 2040 plan EIR and the Winchester Urban Village Plan. There is no acknowledgment of a sensitive transition or protecting the quality and integrity of neighborhoods. When 2 single story residences are to be replaced by a 6 story hotel, that is not a sensitive transition. This proposed development will create a multitude of negative environmental impacts that are being ignored by claiming the height conforms and the land use designation conforms to the Winchester Urban Village plan.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-2
This comment does not address the adequacy of the CEQA analysis in the IS/MND.

Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response-3 regarding the project’s conformance with the applicable General Plan, Urban Village Plan, and Zoning Code requirements. 18 A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment -3
Winchester Urban Village plan 3.3
Land Use Plan Overview
The southern node around the corner of Payne Avenue and Winchester Boulevard encourages higher intensity mixed-use, walkable development, with ground floor commercial and residential uses above. New development should integrate a variety of outdoor plazas, public art, and parks where the community can meet, linger, and socialize.

This project is located in the southern node of the Winchester Urban Village plan and provides none of the requirements of a new development, like outdoor plazas, public art, green spaces etc.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-3
This is not a comment on the adequacy of the CEQA analysis. Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response-3 regarding the project’s conformance with the applicable General Plan, Urban Village Plan, and Zoning Code requirements.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-4

3.3-1 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Neighborhood/Community Commercial
FAR up to 3.5
The Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation supports a broad range of commercial uses such as neighborhood-serving retail stores and services, commercial and professional offices and private community gathering facilities. New residential uses are not supported by this land use designation.

This designation is applied to smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester Boulevard and abutting single-family residences. Given the size of the parcels, parking requirements in the zoning code and the urban design step down policies, these properties are appropriate for the location of smaller commercial businesses.

Once again the proposed project on shallow lots fronting Winchester Blvd and abutting multiple single family residences does not fit in with the Winchester Urban Village plan.

These lots were meant to have businesses that support and service the neighborhood and community.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-4
This is not a comment on the adequacy of the CEQA analysis. Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response-3 regarding the project’s conformance with the applicable General Plan, Urban Village Plan, and Zoning Code requirements.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal; additional responses are provided in the SUP Appeal Response (See Exhibit B).

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-5
Comments submitted by concerned residents -June 2021
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 Redoaks 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 Redoaks 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.

Also why is the shade study done only till the afternoon and not until sundown? Is it because that would show that there would a shadow cast on the properties on Redoaks Drive too?
SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response -5
20 As detailed in the “Responses to Public Comments and Text Changes” document dated October 2021, Response D1, and noted in the comment above, the project plans (Appendix A of the IS/MND) included a shadow study illustrating the shadows that would be cast by the hotel project during the autumn, winter, spring and summer months for illustrative purposes. The shadow study depicted the project’s shadows at 9 a.m., 10 a.m., 12 p.m., 2 p.m., and 4 p.m. during autumn and winter and 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 12 p.m., 2 p.m., and 5 p.m. during the spring and summer. As shown in the shadow study, properties along Redoaks Drive would be most shaded during the winter at 4 p.m. and spring at 5 p.m. Regardless of shadows cast, shade cast on surrounding residential land uses would not impair the use of the properties.

For the purposes of identifying a significant Land Use and Planning impact under CEQA in the City of San José, only Downtown projects which would have to result in a 10 percent or greater increase in the shadow cast onto any one of the six major open space areas in the Downtown San José area (St. James Park, Plaza of Palms, Plaza de Cesar Chavez, Paseo de Santa Antonio, Guadalupe River Park, and/or McEnery Park) would result in a significant impact due to shade/shadows. The project is not located in Downtown San José near the identified six major open space areas. Therefore, there is no significant impact Land Use and Planning impact under CEQA and no mitigation is warranted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Determination of Consistency. No further CEQA analysis is required.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-6
Initial Study Page 44 states
d)
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Less Than Significant)
The project site is currently developed with two buildings. Therefore, the project site, in its current condition, produces sources of light and possibly glare. In addition, existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project site are primarily from adjacent residences and commercial sites, streetlights, and headlights of vehicular traffic on South Winchester Boulevard.

The proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site as the proposed project includes security lights and other nighttime lights. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the City’s adopted Lighting Policy 4-2 and Private Outdoor Lighting Policy 4-3 to control the amount and color of light shining on streets and sidewalks reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level. All outdoor lighting would be shielded to direct light downwards to ensure that lighting does not spill over onto nearby residential properties, consistent with the City’s regulations.

The proposed project would comply with applicable policies set forth to reduce impacts related to light and glare generated by new development. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on day and nighttime views would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project With a setback of 5 feet to the north of the proposed project, where exactly would these lights be placed? Residents have previously brought up concerns about the environmental impacts of excessive lighting on the quality of life only to be ignored by the planning department. New sources of lighting for this project would need to operate on a 24/7 basis due to the nature of the project itself. The project images in the project plans show stairways on the north side on the building facing the single family residence and lighting would need to be available at all levels, causing light to affect not only the neighboring properties on S. Winchester Blvd but also onto properties on Redoaks Drive and beyond.

The MND does no analysis of how far the required lighting for this project would shine at all hours of the night and its environmental impact on the residences.

As stated in the Winchester Urban Village Plan, it is important to consider the environmental impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. We believe that an EIR is required to evaluate whether the proposed Winchester Hotel Project height, density, setbacks, traffic, fire safety and operating policies are sensitive to the need to protect the quality and integrity of our neighborhood. A project of this magnitude requires a thorough environmental review under CEQA guidelines to understand the true impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

We urge you to consider this appeal of the Environmental Determination.

Sincerely
Gaz Salihue & Shehana Marikar
Response to SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-6
As discussed in the Aesthetics Section 4.0 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site as the proposed project includes security lights and other nighttime lights. All outdoor lighting would be shielded to direct light downwards to ensure that lighting does not spill over onto nearby residential properties, consistent with the City’s regulations Council Policy 4-2 (Lighting Policy) and Council Policy 4-3 (Private Outdoor Lighting Policy). As detailed in Section 3.2 of the IS/MND, the proposed development conforms to the development standards, including setbacks, outlined in the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on day and nighttime views would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to the environmental analysis of the IS/MND, it does not identify any significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the IS/MND’s analysis or conclusions, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures not already disclosed in the Determination of Consistency or the IS/MND and associated appendices. Therefore, no further response is required.

Jeffrey Williams (WILLIAMS)
22 The comment letter from Jefferey WIlliams is referred to as WILLIAMS herein.

WILLIAMS Comment-1

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT DEFICIENCY AFFECTING TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

The item listed below in item 4.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC and labeled as having a NonCEQA Effect is not accurate as the Developer did not follow the recommendation made by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (“Hexagon”) in the 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis (“Transportation Analysis”) when preparing the project’s Operations Plan. The result of that decision has eliminated that mitigating measure and no longer has a Non-CEQA Effect. This item has a direct negative effect on the CEQA topics listed below. That negative impact has not been addressed in the report that was prepared by the Planning Department and submitted to the City Council.

WILLIAMS Response-1
This comment is related to the Transportation Analysis (Appendix H in the IS/MND) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and discussed in the Transportation/Traffic Section 4.17 of the IS/MND. Council Policy 5-1 established VMT as the metric to measure transportation impacts under CEQA, the framework for a Transportation Analysis (TA), and the framework for a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA).

As described in Transportation/Traffic, Section 4.17 of the IS/MND, the project will not have a VMT impact per the City’s screening criteria for retail use (i.e., retail project less than 100,000 square feet). 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 localserving uses. Therefore, because the retail space conversion is equivalent is 38,600 square feet (i.e., less than 100,000 square feet per the local-serving screening criteria), the proposed project does not require a detailed CEQA VMT analysis and would result in a less than significant VMT impact. 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
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project • 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
Implementation of the measures outlined above would ensure the project meets the provisions for vehicle parking reduction. Therefore, there is no significant transportation/traffic impact under CEQA and no further analysis is required. Please also refer to GROUP LETTER Responses-7 through 10.

WILLIAMS Comment-2
Guest and Valet Drop-off/Pick-up Zone Operations (Page 168) 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 drop-off/ pick-up areas.

The Developer did not follow the recommendation of two to three valet staff be present during the peak arrival/departure periods for the hotel as made in the Transportation Analysis prepared for this project. Instead, the Developer has chosen to only provide for one valet in their Operating Plan in order to keep the number workers on site to a maximum of 10. (See the Developer’s Operations Plan included in the project document package). Based upon the number of inbound trips and the vehicle arrival time discussed in the Transportation Analysis, the lack of parking valets to handle the demand will result in a backup of cars across the sidewalk at the entrance to the parking garage, as well as, blocking the bicycle and traffic lanes on South Winchester Boulevard. That decision by the Developer has a direct negative effect on the following TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CEQA related areas and the impact of that decision was not addressed when the Mitigation Measures were analyzed:

1. Pedestrian Access – cars blocking the sidewalk while waiting for valet service will prevent pedestrian from using the sidewalks as well as creating a safety hazard. 24 2. Emergency Access – cars backing up into the traffic on South Winchester Boulevard while waiting for valet service will restrict emergency vehicle access to the property. This issue is especially concerning for the Acute Care Facility that is immediately to the south of this proposed hotel. That Acute Care Facility currently has frequent visits by fire and ambulance services. Any blockage of their driveway or area in the front of that facility will restrict emergency vehicle access to that property as well.

3. Bicycle Lanes – the back-up of cars waiting for valet service will also block the bicycle lanes. Not only will this inhibit bicycle traffic, but it also potentially poses a safety risk to bicyclists in a high traffic area.

4. Traffic Safety - cars backing up into the traffic on South Winchester Boulevard while waiting for valet service will not only block traffic during high traffic periods, but it also poses a safety risk as oncoming vehicles having to change lanes to avoid the backup and proceed on their journey.

5. Delivery Access - cars backing up into the traffic on South Winchester Boulevard while waiting for valet service will block access to the projects off street delivery area causing delivery vehicles to park in the street during high traffic periods, thereby blocking traffic and increasing traffic safety hazards.

Respectfully,
Jeffrey Williams
WILLIAMS Response-2
This comment does not address the adequacy of the IS/MND. Per the Hotel Operations Plan, valet parking, queuing and retrieval would occur in the basement level and not within the public right-of-way street, bicycle lane, or sidewalk. As shown on the project plans (Appendix A of the IS/MND), the valet queuing space is located over 80 feet from the garage entry at the sidewalk and therefore should a queue of cars form for valet services they would queue within the garage. 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. The Delivery and Loading zone are located adjacent to the garage entry. As noted above, per the Transportation Analysis, the project would not have a significant transportation/traffic impact. Therefore, no further response is required.

Mabel Chang (CHENG)
The March 27, 2022 comment letter from Mabel Cheng is referred to as CHENG herein.

CHENG Comment-1
27 March 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Determination
Ref. Planning Director Hearing on Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S.

Winchester Blvd., San Jose
Dear Honorable mayor and City Council Members:

However, we object to several aspects of the hotel proposal for this site, and appeal to the Council to review recent determinations. Specifically, today let me draw your attention to three topics: scenic vistas, construction-related vibration, and building setbacks. These issues were raised during the meeting referenced above, but were not directly or adequately addressed.

CHENG Response-1
This comment is an introductory statement. The comment does not provide any new information about scenic vistas, construction-related vibration, and building setbacks that would raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the Determination of Consistency and associated appendices, including the IS/MND on which it is based.

CHENG Comment-2
Scenic vistas
Section 4.1.1 of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) asks "Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?". The impact discussion attempting to support the “less than significant” determination states that:
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. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Our residence is located immediately east of the project site, and we can say with certainty that there is a scenic vista to the west, and it is magnificent. We enjoy watching the sun set over the West Santa Clara hills and open spaces. A 6 story hotel located between us and our sunset will definitely have an adverse effect on our scenic vista. While the response in the IS/MND may address aspects directly associated with the City's Scenic Corridors Diagram, 26 the response is a gross mischaracterization of the negative impact this project will have on one of the most treasured features of our home.

Prior response from the City on this issue (15 Oct 2021, ref. R1, D3, E3) has failed to address the negative impact of this proposed project on nearby property values. 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. 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.

CHENG Response-2
As discussed in the “Responses to Public Comments and Text Changes” document dated October 2021, Response E3, 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. The project is in conformance with the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan development standards. As discussed in GROUP LETTER Response-3, the project complies with the allowable height for the subject lot is 65 feet (5 to 6 stories typical). This comment does not address the adequacy of the Determination of Consistency. No further CEQA analysis is required.

CHENG Comment-3
Vibration
Section 4.13.6b of the IS/MND asks "Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?". Substantiation for the “less than significant” determination includes:

As the owner of one of these adjacent sites, we certainly feel that this is a “significant” impact. We fail to understand how the City can assess it as “less than significant” when City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project projected vibration exceeds the allowable threshold by a factor of 6. We expect the City to ensure that competent professionals will be tasked to thoroughly document the state of relevant adjacent structures prior to demolition and construction. The developer should then be prepared to compensate affected parties for associated damages incurred by those structures as a direct result of demolition and construction activities.

CHENG Response-3
As analyzed in the Noise Assessment (Appendix G to the IS/MND) prepared by WJV Acoustics, the project’s noise consultant, and discussed in Noise Section 4.13 of the IS/MND, the highest levels of construction-related vibrations are typically associated with pile driving and the use of vibratory rollers (See Table VI of Appendix G to the IS/MND). The General Plan Policy EC-2.3 establishes the vibration threshold for normal convention structures (non-historic structures) to 0.20 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV).

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. The noise assessment vibration from demolition and construction activities is anticipated to be detected at the closest sensitive land uses (residences located 15 feet north and 70 feet east of the project site), especially during demolition (pavement/concrete breaking), movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if paving activities were to occur).

At these distances, vibration levels created by vibratory rollers could be up to 1.23 inches per second PPV, which would exceed the City’s 0.2 inch per second PPV limit.

However, as identified in the IS/MND, 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 project construction does not include equipment identified to cause the greatest noise vibration, the project permit would include the following condition of approval:

The project will not include or conduct pile-driving activities or vibratory rollers during all phases of construction.

This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to significant environmental impacts or issues that would change the project’s impact, require additional analysis, or result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures other than those analyzed and disclosed in the IS/MND and associated appendices, and therefore, the Determination of Consistency is adequate.

CHENG Comment-4
28 Side setback
Municipal code 20.40.200 - Development standards
Table 20-100
Zoning district CP (Commercial Pedestrian)
Minimum setback, side, interior:
none; or as established in approved Urban Village Plan
Municipal code 20.40.270 - Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20.40.200, in the CP commercial district, a building side setback shall be required for interior lots on that side of each such lot which abuts on the side of a lot situated in a residence district, in which case the side setback requirements shall be a minimum of ten feet.

The project site and the residential property to the north are both interior lots, which means one side faces the street, and the other 3 sides are shared with neighboring properties. Municipal code

20.40.270 clearly requires a side setback of at least 10 ft between a commercial building and a
neighboring residential property line. However, the project plans currently indicate a side setback of
only 5 ft 6 in. This inconsistency needs to be addressed immediately. This correction will also improve the fire department access to the side and rear of the building.

We appreciate your attention to these concerns.

Mabel Cheng
Response to CHENG-4
This is not a comment on the adequacy of the CEQA analysis. Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response-3 regarding the project’s conformance with the applicable General Plan, Urban Village Plan, and Zoning Code requirements.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal, see the SUP Appeal Response (Exhibit B).

Brian and Helen Matsumoto (MATSUMOTO)
The March 27, 2022 comment letter from Brian and Helen Matsumoto is referred to as MATSUMOTO herein.

MATSUMOTO Comment-1
27 March 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Determination
Ref. Planning Director Hearing on Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd., San Jose
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Addressing MND, Section 4.15
Section 4.17 Transportation/Traffic 4.17.4 (Impact Discussion, Item D on page 166-167)
I would like to call attention to Fire Safety and related concerns.

Fire safety and mitigation is of utmost importance to the community with regards to any proposed project at the 1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd address.

According to OSHA, “The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus...ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible.” Developments on appropriately sized lots along Winchester have clearly marked fire lanes for fire truck access: A Grace Subacute, 1250 S. Winchester; Lynhaven Apartments, 919 S. Winchester; Villa Cortina, 801 S. Winchester.

As noted, the North and South access of this project is 5’6” and 6’ 0” respectively. Fire-fighting with the aid of a truck is limited to frontal aerial coverage. A fire at the mid to lower levels in the rear of the building will not be accessible with only frontal aerial coverage. Are the side setbacks of 5’ or less sufficient for fire fighters to navigate with ladders and devices from the front access to the back of the structure? Also the access would need to be maintained to always be clear.

We believe fire safety should and needs to be incorporated into the initial design of the project and not later in the project.

MATSUMOTO Response-1
Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response 6. This comment does not identify any new impacts or inadequacies of the CEQA analysis.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal, see the SUP Appeal Response (Exhibit B).

MATSUMOTO Comment-2
In the document dated October 2021, “Responses to Public Comments and Text Changes, on page 28, Response I7 there is the following statement. “During the Planning Review, the Fire Department noted that a Fire Variance will be required for the project. The Fire Variance application will be deferred to the Building Permit stage. Approval of the Fire Variance is required prior to issuance of the Building Permit.”
In the Planning Director Public Hearing meeting on March 23, 2022 for SP20-016, it was clearly stated that a Fire Variance is necessary for this 30 project.

Why is the fire safety plan / Fire Variance only considered at during building permit approval phase?
As fire safety is a concern not only for the occupants but also for the general public, any Fire Variance should be addressed and made public as part of the initial design. This would allow for corrections to address any building design deficiencies related to the project.

MATSUMOTO Response-2
Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response 6. This comment does not identify any new impacts or inadequacies of the CEQA analysis.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal, see the SUP Appeal Response (Exhibit B).

MATSUMOTO Comment-3
In addition, the document “1) Initial Study_1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd Hotel PROJECT ” dated May 2021, on page 148, section 4.15.4, discusses the Impact for the need of new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

It is stated, paragraph 1, “The proposed project would replace two commercially-used buildings with a 119-guestroom hotel. Development of the site would incrementally increase the need for fire protection services but would not significantly impact the response time or require construction of new facilities.”
Paragraph 2, “Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Fire Code standards”. However, the Fire Variance has not been submitted to be approved yet. The community has raised concerns in regards to the fire-fighting capabilities especially in the rear of the bldg.

Paragraph 3, “The General Plan EIR evaluated the need for new fire stations with buildout of the General Plan and concluded that implementation of the general plan would result in an increase in calls for fire protection services but would not result in the need for construction of fire stations in excess of those currently planned.”
This clearly outlines that additional fire stations are currently planned to support this project and others in the Urban Village Plan. As this is a necessary step for a comprehensive fire safety and protection, the additional fire stations will need to be in service and functional prior to any high rise construction project. Commencement and completion of a high rise project without the necessary number of fire fighting facilities/stations, would place not only the project but also the surrounding neighborhoods at risk. This will result in a gross negligence for fire safety.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project We believe that Fire Safety is an integral part of the General Plan EIR and thus should be addressed at this phase of the project and NOT at the building permit process.

Respectfully,
Brian & Helen Matsumoto
Response to MATSUMOTO-3
Please refer to GROUP LETTER Response 6. This comment does not identify any new impacts or inadequacies of the CEQA analysis.

A similar comment was made in in the permit appeal, see the SUP Appeal Response (Exhibit B).

EXHIBIT A – APPEAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
3/27/2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Appeal
Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd, San Jose Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

We are residents of the Hamann Park neighborhood that would be impacted by this project. Many of us worked with the City in developing the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and were supportive of this engagement. We are aware of the City’s economic goals and tax base objectives and very much support the City’s efforts to attain some balance in the tax base/services delivery.

We also support hotel development, but this site stands out as inappropriate.

This site has smaller, shallow parcels that will have a negative environmental impact on the neighborhood. Our concerns are listed below along with attached documents prepared by residents addressing these issues.

1.The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the hotel project at 1212- 1224 S Winchester attached to the January 11, 2022 City Council Agenda packet and fully incorporated into the City Council adopted Resolution is not the report for the subject property, but is a report for an entirely different project.

Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses should have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community. These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate form that supports walking, transit use and public interaction. Also, this designation supports the neighborhood servicing retail and small businesses along Winchester Boulevard.” (Winchester Blvd Urban Village Plan p.19) Based on the way Land Use was planned and designated in the Winchester Urban Village, we believe that the hotel project has a significant negative impact on the Land Use and Planning resource.

This designation supports commercial activity that is more intensive than that of the Neighborhood Urban/Community Commercial land use designation.

Appropriate uses in this designation include a variety of commercial uses, mid-rise office buildings and hotels…” (Winchester Blvd Urban Village Plan p.19) The Winchester Urban Village Plan clearly states what area and what land use is intended for facilities like hotels. We believe this has a significant negative impact on the Urban Village Land Use and Planning resource.

5. FIRE SAFETY – In 2002, ashes fell onto the neighborhood from the Santana Row fire, which resulted in over $100 million in damages. According to OSHA, “The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus...ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible.” These developments on appropriately sized lots along
Winchester have clearly marked fire lanes: A Grace Subacute, 1250 S.

Winchester; Lynhaven Apartments, 919 S. Winchester; Villa Cortina, 801 S.

Winchester. The Winchester Hotel Plan on the shallow lots leave no room for fire lanes; instead of fire lanes, hose paths are proposed around the sides and back as part of an Aerial
Fire Plan (OSHA manual p14; Mercury News article on Santana Row fire). In a Memorandum dated 10/11/19 to Planning Dept Project Manager Michelle Flores from Gordana Sabatelli, San Jose Fire Department, she wrote that “The applicant has the option to apply for a Fire Department Variance to mitigate deficiencies noted in this Section. The Variance must be approved prior to Planning Approval.” Why has the Variance been deferred when it was clearly stated by the SJ Fire Dept that it “must be approved prior to Planning Approval”.

The use of hose paths instead of Fire Access Lanes is a change to what other developments along Winchester Blvd have complied with up to this point. We believe this is a safety concern.

6. PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST RISK FROM DRIVEWAYS CROSSING THE

SIDEWALK FOR THE GARAGE AND LOADING ZONE
Urban Village Vision: “Parking structures should not be visible from Winchester Boulevard.” and “Reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflicts by minimizing driveways along the Primary Pedestrian Routes.” (Winchester Blvd Urban Village, DG-56 & DG-62)
The Winchester Hotel Plan: Parking Garage faces Winchester and driveways for both the Garage and the “Delivery and Loading Zone” cross the sidewalk. (Winchester Hotel Plan, pA.08, Rev-1; 11/01/2019) “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 not impact traffic operations on Winchester Boulevard…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.” (Project Documents, Appendix H, Transportation Analysis, p.46) Hexagon Transportation Analysis was working off the Hotel Plan dated 11/01/2019, which did not take into account the adjacent driveway for the on-site Delivery and Loading Zone for small trucks. We believe this is a safety concern that was not analyzed by the Hexagon Transportation Analysis.

9. TRAFFIC ON WINCHESTER AND PAYNE
“Based on the ITE (Intersectional Operations Analysis) 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. (Transportation Analysis, p. 26)
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) (Transportation Analysis, p 46) How does the Planning Dept assess the impact of this on pedestrian and bicycle activity? How will this impact the “Potential Mid-Block Crossing” located at the southern edge of 1224 S Winchester? (Urban Village Plan, Figure 4-1, p35) This is an impediment to pedestrian enjoyment and safety.

10. COMPATIBILITY OF BUILDING HEIGHT, PLACEMENT AND SCALE One of the major elements of the Urban Design Framework Placement and Scale (Urban Village P.51).
a) Although a 6 story 65 ft structure requires a 40 ft setback next to residential properties, the Winchester Hotel Plan reduces the height by 5 inches to move 50% closer to the rear fence, now a 20-foot setback.
b) Rear/Side setbacks apply when located adjacent to Residential/Neighborhood or Urban Residential land use designations. Because the Urban Village Plan changed the Land Use Designation along this section of Winchester to Neighborhood/Community Commercial, the hotel plan is being allowed a 6 ft side setback next to the family next door. They have owned their home over 30 yrs. (Urban Village Plan, p.64) Therefore, we believe that this project does have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.

11. DISINCENTIVE FOR NEW ROOFTOP SOLAR ON ADJACENT HOMES – See Season Shade Diagrams (Winchester Hotel Plan, p. A.28, A.29) “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…”(Project Documents, Response to Comment, Response N2, p.38) Therefore, with regard as to whether solar panels would be possible for adjacent neighbors, we believe this project has substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

12. IMPACT OF 91% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON GROUNDWATER RETENTION (Impervious Surface: A surface on a developed parcel that prevents the land’s natural ability to absorb and infiltrate rainfall/stormwater. Definition San Jose Council Policy 6-29, Revised 10/4/11, p.6) See “Response to Santa Clara Valley Water District” questions, one of which referenced the Valley Water 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. (Public Comments, P. 8); See Table 2 of Environmental Checklist showing Impervious Site Coverage at 91% (Initial Study, p. 12); See Winchester Hotel Plan, p. C3.0 to C4.2, regarding Grading, and Utility Plan, Draining, Stormwater Control Plan, Media Filtration Details. Details include information on operation and maintenance of the Contech Catch Basin Storm Filter. With significant yearly droughts becoming more frequent, we believe that 91% impervious coverage does have significant negative impact on lost ground water. Is there any information stating how much water the engineered storm drain system would drain from the site?
We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a positive response to our objections to the negative environmental impact of the hotel plan on our neighborhood. We hope to participate in a process that results in an appropriate development that fulfills the vision of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village, a project that meets the City’s economic and tax base growth objectives, an acceptable outcome for the Developer and the creation of appropriate smaller commercial businesses with a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community.

Sincerely,
Gaz Salihue & Shehana Marikar, 1204 S Winchester, San Jose Tom & Gail Morman, 1242 Redoaks Dr, San Jose
Hal Stone, 1233 Castlemont Ave, San Jose
Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams, 1216 Castlemont Ave, San Jose Brian & Helen Matsumoto, 1247 Redoaks Dr, San Jose
Mike & Galina Drabkin, 1234 Redoaks Dr, San Jose
Mabel Cheng, 1235 Redoaks Dr, San Jose

ATTACHMENTS

1. Gaz Salihue & Shehana Marikar

2. Jeff Williams

3. Mabel Cheng

4. Brian & Helen Matsumoto
On-Line Sources

1. Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plang government/departments/planning- building-code-enforcement/planning-division/citywideplanning/urban-villages/approved-urban-village-plans

2. Initial Study labeled “1212 S Winchester Blvd Hotel Project IS MND” in Project Documents

3. Project Documents:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/environment al- planning/environmental-review/negative-declaration-initial-studies/1212- 1224-south- winchester-boulevard-hotel-project

4. Mercury News article “Santana Row fire facts” :
https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/08/18/santana-row-fire-facts

5. OSHA, Fire Service of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems, p14 https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ OSHA3256.pdf
Date 3/25/2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Determination
Ref. Planning Director Hearing on Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212- 1224 S. Winchester Blvd., San Jose
Dear Honorable mayor and City Council Members:

The Winchester Urban Village Plan states
The Winchester Urban Village Plan creates specific policies concerning the interface between new high density development and the lower density residential neighborhoods. The Envision San Jose 2040 PEIR acknowledges the importance of a sensitive transition at these interfaces “to protect the quality and integrity of the neighborhoods....”.

Winchester Urban Village plan 3.3
Land Use Plan Overview
The southern node around the corner of Payne Avenue and Winchester Boulevard encourages higher intensity mixed-use, walkable development, with ground floor commercial and residential uses above. New development should integrate a variety of outdoor plazas, public art, and parks where the community can meet, linger, and socialize.

This project is located in the southern node of the Winchester Urban Village plan and provides none of the requirements of a new development, like outdoor plazas, public art, green spaces etc.

Once again the proposed project on shallow lots fronting Winchester Blvd and abutting multiple single family residences does not fit in with the Winchester Urban Village plan. These lots were meant to have businesses that support and service the neighborhood and community.

Comments submitted by concerned residents -June 2021
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 Redoaks Drive.

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 Redoaks 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.

New developments at a lower height would create less of a shadow on the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. The above concern was raised about the shadow this 6 story structure would create on the adjacent properties. As you can see there are no mitigation measures in place and the concerns of the resident were completely ignored. Also why is the shade study done only till the afternoon and not until sundown? Is it because that would show that there would a shadow cast on the properties on Redoaks Drive too? Initial Study Page 44 states
d)
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Less Than Significant)
The project site is currently developed with two buildings. Therefore, the project site, in its current condition, produces sources of light and possibly glare. In addition, existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project site are primarily from adjacent residences and commercial sites, streetlights, and headlights of vehicular traffic on South Winchester Boulevard.

With a setback of 5 feet to the north of the proposed project, where exactly would these lights be placed? Residents have previously brought up concerns about the environmental impacts of excessive lighting on the quality of life only to be ignored by the planning department. New sources of lighting for this project would need to operate on a 24/7 basis due to the nature of the project itself. The project images in the project plans show stairways on the north side on the building facing the single family residence and lighting would need to be available at all levels, causing light to affect not only the neighboring properties on S. Winchester Blvd but also onto properties on Redoaks Drive and beyond. The MND does no analysis of how far the required lighting for this project would shine at all hours of the night and its environmental impact on the residences.

We urge you to consider this appeal of the Environmental Determination.

Sincerely
Gaz Salihue & Shehana Marikar
1204 S. Winchester Blvd
San Jose 95128
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Appeal
Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd, San Jose

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT DEFICIENCY AFFECTING TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

The item listed below in item 4.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC and labeled as having a Non-CEQA Effect is not accurate as the Developer did not follow the recommendation made by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (“Hexagon”) in the 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development Transportation Analysis (“Transportation Analysis”) when preparing the project’s Operations Plan. The result of that decision has eliminated that mitigating measure and no longer has a Non-CEQA Effect. This item has a direct negative effect on the CEQA topics listed below. That negative impact has not been addressed in the report that was prepared by the Planning Department and submitted to the City Council.

Guest and Valet Drop-off/Pick-up Zone Operations (Page 168) 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 drop-off/ pick-up areas.

1. Pedestrian Access – cars blocking the sidewalk while waiting for valet service will prevent pedestrian from using the sidewalks as well as creating a safety hazard.

2. Emergency Access – cars backing up into the traffic on South Winchester Boulevard while waiting for valet service will restrict emergency vehicle access to the property. This issue is especially concerning for the Acute Care Facility that is immediately to the south of this proposed hotel. That Acute Care Facility currently has frequent visits by fire and ambulance services. Any blockage of their driveway or area in the front of that facility will restrict emergency vehicle access to that property as well.

Respectfully,
Jeffrey Williams
1216 Castlemont Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
27 March 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Determination
Ref. Planning Director Hearing on Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S.

Winchester Blvd., San Jose
Dear Honorable mayor and City Council Members:

However, we object to several aspects of the hotel proposal for this site, and appeal to the Council to review recent determinations. Specifically, today let me draw your attention to three topics: scenic vistas, construction-related vibration, and building setbacks. These issues were raised during the meeting referenced above, but were not directly or adequately addressed.

Scenic vistas
Section 4.1.1 of the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) asks "Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?". The impact discussion attempting to support the “less than significant” determination states that:
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.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Our residence is located immediately east of the project site, and we can say with certainty that there is a scenic vista to the west, and it is magnificent. We enjoy watching the sun set over the West Santa Clara hills and open spaces. A 6 story hotel located between us and our sunset will definitely have an adverse effect on our scenic vista. While the response in the IS/MND may address aspects directly associated with the City's Scenic Corridors Diagram, the response is a gross mischaracterization of the negative impact this project will have on one of the most treasured features of our home.

Vibration
Section 4.13.6b of the IS/MND asks "Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?". Substantiation for the “less than significant” determination includes:

As the owner of one of these adjacent sites, we certainly feel that this is a “significant” impact. We fail to understand how the City can assess it as “less than significant” when projected vibration exceeds the allowable threshold by a factor of 6. We expect the City to ensure that competent professionals will be tasked to thoroughly document the state of relevant adjacent structures prior to demolition and construction. The developer should then be prepared to compensate affected parties for associated damages incurred by those structures as a direct result of demolition and construction activities.

Side setback
Municipal code 20.40.200 - Development standards
Table 20-100
Zoning district CP (Commercial Pedestrian)
Minimum setback, side, interior:
none; or as established in approved Urban Village Plan
Municipal code 20.40.270 - Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot.

The project site and the residential property to the north are both interior lots, which means one side faces the street, and the other 3 sides are shared with neighboring properties. Municipal code

20.40.270 clearly requires a side setback of at least 10 ft between a commercial building and a neighboring residential property line. However, the project plans currently indicate a side setback of only 5 ft 6 in. This inconsistency needs to be addressed immediately. This correction will also improve the fire department access to the side and rear of the building.

We appreciate your attention to these concerns.

Mabel Cheng
1235 Redoaks Dr.

San Jose, CA 95128
March 27, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subject: Appeal of an Environmental Appeal
Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd, San Jose Addressing MND, Section 4.15
Section 4.17 Transportation/Traffic 4.17.4 (Impact Discussion, Item D on page 166-167)
I would like to call attention to Fire Safety and related concerns.

Fire safety and mitigation is of utmost importance to the community with regards to any proposed project at the 1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd address.

We believe fire safety should and needs to be incorporated into the initial design of the project and not later in the project.

In the document dated October 2021, “Responses to Public Comments and Text Changes, on page 28, Response I7 there is the following statement. “During the Planning Review, the Fire Department noted that a Fire Variance will be required for the project. The Fire Variance application will be deferred to the Building Permit stage. Approval of the Fire Variance is required prior to issuance of the Building Permit.”
In the Planning Director Public Hearing meeting on March 23, 2022 for SP20-016, it was clearly stated that a Fire Variance is necessary for this project.

In addition, the document “1) Initial Study_1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd Hotel PROJECT ” dated May 2021, on page 148, section 4.15.4, discusses the Impact for the need of new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

We believe that Fire Safety is an integral part of the General Plan EIR and thus should be addressed at this phase of the project and NOT at the building permit process.

Respectfully,
Brian & Helen Matsumoto
1247 Redoaks Dr, San Jose
EXHIBIT B – RESPONSE TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPEAL
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 5 Section 1 - Introduction
Following the approval of the project (SP20-016) by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on March 23, 2022, Shehana Marikar, and other neighbors on behalf of the Hamann Park neighborhood, filed a request to appeal the Planning Director’s decision on account of the project (permit appeal) and the Determination of Consistency with the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental determination appeal).

The letter and staff responses to the concerns raised in the Special Use Permit appeal are discussed in below. These include:
• Consistency with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial.
• Consistency with applicable General Plan policies
• Side setback requirements
• Compatibility of building height
• Fire Safety
• Building Division project review
• Pedestrian Safety
• Passenger pick up/drop off operations
• Lack of parking
• Trash pick up operations
• Security concerns
• Traffic congestion
Each comment in the letter has been named so that comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is re-printed, followed by the corresponding response.

Authors Author Code
Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar; Tom and Gail Morman; Hal Stone; Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams; Brian and Helen Matsumoto; Mike and Galina Drabkin; Mabel Chen ………………….………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….………..…GROUP Gaz Salihue & Shehana
Marikar…….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………SALIHUE/MARIKAR Jeffrey & Jackie
Williams……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………WILLIAMS Mabel Cheng…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………CHENG Brian and Helen
Matsumoto………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..……..MATSUMOTO City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 6 Tom and Gail
Morman………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..MORMAN Mike and Galina
Drabkin………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...DRABKIN City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 7 Section 2 – Response to Appeal of Director Approval
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 8 Group
The April 1, 2022 comment letter from Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar; Tom and Gail Morman; Hal Stone; Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams; Brian and Helen Matsumoto; Mike and Galina Drabkin; Mabel Cheng referred to as GROUP herein.

GROUP Comment-1
4/1/2022
To: San Jose Planning Commission
Subject: Appeal of Special Use Permit
Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd, San Jose Dear Mr. Chairperson and Members of the San Jose Planning Commission:

We are residents of the Hamann Park neighborhood that would be impacted by this project.

We also support hotel development, but this site stands out as inappropriate. This site has smaller, shallow parcels that will have a negative environmental impact on the neighborhood.

Our concerns with many of the Municipal Code Findings listed below are addressed in the attached documents.

Per San Jose Municipal Code 20.100.820 Findings:

A. In addition to any findings required by any other section of this title, the director, planning commission or city council as appropriate, may issue a special use permit only if all the following findings are made:

1. The special use permit, as approved, is consistent with and will further the policies of the general plan and applicable specific plans and area development policies; and

2. The special use permit, as approved, conforms with the zoning code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project; and

3. The special use permit, as approved, is consistent with applicable city council policies, or counterbalancing considerations justify the inconsistency; and

4. The proposed use at the location requested will not:
i. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or ii. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; or
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 9 iii. Be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and

5. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area; and

6. The proposed site is adequately served:
i. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate; or by other forms of transit adequate to carry the kind and quantity of individuals such use would generate; and
ii. By other public or private service facilities as are required.

7. The environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to noise, vibration, dust, drainage, erosion, storm water runoff, and odor which, even if insignificant for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will not have an unacceptable negative affect on adjacent property or properties.

B. The director, planning commission, or city council as appropriate, shall deny the application where the information submitted by the applicant and/or presented at the public hearing fails to satisfactorily substantiate such findings.

We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a positive response to our objections to insufficient findings for the hotel permit in our neighborhood. We hope to participate in a process that results in an appropriate development that fulfills the vision of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village, a project that meets the City’s economic and tax base growth objectives, an acceptable outcome for the Developer and the creation of appropriate smaller commercial businesses with a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community.

Sincerely,
Gaz Salihue & Shehana Marikar
Mabel Cheng
Mike & Galina Drabkin
Brian & Helen Matsumoto
Tom & Gail Morman
Hal & Susan Stone
Jeffrey and Jacqueline Williams
GROUP Response-1
This comment is an introductory statement regarding the permit appeal on the basis that the project does not meet the findings required for the issuance of a Special Use Permit. This comment does not raise any new issues with respect to the analysis of the project with regards to conformance with the General Plan, Winchester City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 10 Boulevard Urban Village Plan, Zoning Code, Design Guidelines, or applicable City Council policies. Therefore, no further response is required.

Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar (SALIHUE/MARIKAR)
The April 1 , 2022 comment letter from Gaz Salihue and Shehana Marikar is referred to as SALIHUE/MARIKAR herin.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment– 1
Special Use Permit (page 3)
Attractive City Policy CD-1.1:

Require the highest standards of architectural and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.

The construction of a 6 story project adjacent to a residential neighborhood does not enhance or develop community character.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-1
The project would allow the redevelopment of two single-family residences currently used for commercial purposes. The project conforms with the applicable design guidelines of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines as outlined in the Project Analysis section of the staff report and Special Use Permit Resolution. The maximum height of 65 feet (to the top of roof) conforms with the allowable height of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, while maintaining the required setback and stepback requirements.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-2
Compatibility Policy CD-4.9:

For development subject to design review, ensure the design of new or remodeled structures is consistent or complementary with the surrounding neighborhood fabric (including but not limited to prevalent building scale, building materials, and orientation of structures to the street).

Analysis: The project would facilitate the redevelopment of an underutilized site with a commercial land use designation. The hotel is designed to be compatible with the established neighborhood to the east as well as the commercial corridor along South Winchester Boulevard. The building massing is oriented towards South Winchester Boulevard. The building is set back 20 feet from the rear property line. Additionally, the building would incorporate a stepback at a height of 35 feet to reduce shadows and maintain the privacy of the adjacent residences. Blank walls would be mitigated with City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 11 variations in color and materials as well as the addition of landscaping to the perimeter of the site. Materials would be varied, including natural wood paneling, architectural glazing, white sand stucco, and exposed gray concrete. The project would also include a 49 percent parking reduction and alternative parking arrangement (vehicle stackers). The parking reduction would be supported by a TDM plan to reduce vehicle trips and encourage multimodal transportation.

This proposed 6 story structure is not consistent or complementary with the surrounding neighborhood especially in building scale in terms on the surrounding one and two story single family homes. The planning staff have repeatedly ignored our concerns as the family that lives in the single family residence north of the proposed project with a mere 5 foot side setback. This setback is in violation of the San Jose Municipal Code 20.40.270 - Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20.40.200, in the CP commercial district, a building side setback shall be required for interior lots on that side of each such lot which abuts on the side of a lot situated in a residence district, in which case the side setback requirements shall be a minimum of ten feet.

The comments by the planning department staff in their analysis talks about the 20 foot setback from the residences to the east of the project and the stepback at 35 feet to reduce shadows on the same residences but there are no mitigation measures for the shadow that will be cast on the property to the north in the autumn and winter months.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-2
Development standards such as heights, setbacks, and stepbacks are set by the approved Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. As proposed, the project is consistent with the applicable height, setback, and stepback requirements of the urban village plan. The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan allows a maximum height of 65 feet at the subject site, not including architectural projections.

Architectural projections such as stairwell and elevator shafts may extend up to ten feet above the top of roof. As shown on the plan set, the architectural projections of the building would extend up to nine feet and six inches above the top of the roof.

Therefore, the total project height of 74 feet, 6 inches would conform with the allowable height of 75 feet. The property adjacent to the subject site to the north is designated Neighborhood/Community Commercial on the General Plan and Winchester Urban Village land use plans. The property to the south is designated Public/Quasi-Public on the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village land use plans. Pursuant to the Urban Village plan, a side setback is only required if the adjacent properties are designated either Urban Residential or Residential Neighborhood. As neither properties adjoining the property to the north or south are designated Urban Residential or Residential Neighborhood, the side setbacks of 5 and 6 feet conform with the required side setbacks. Additionally, as part of the City’s efforts to comply with SB1333, the subject site to the north would be rezoned to a conforming commercial zoning district to the Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation. While the project is required to incorporate a rear City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 12 stepback, there are no side stepback requirements for new projects within the urban village.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment–3
Special Use Permit (Page 4)

4. Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Conformance
Land Use Designation
The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village was adopted by City Council on August 8, 2017 (Resolution No. 78306). The subject site has a land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial on the land use plan of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village. This designation is applied to smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester Boulevard and abutting single-family residences. Given the size of the parcels, parking requirements in the zoning code and the urban design step down policies, these properties are appropriate for the location of smaller commercial businesses.

Land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial is supposed to be for small commercial businesses that would serve the surrounding community. This hotel does not fit the land use designation for this location based on the Winchester Urban Village Plan.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response- 3:

The Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation supports a broad range of commercial activity and is not exclusive to the kinds of commercial uses described in the land use designations in the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. A hotel is a commercial use that may serve local areas by providing accommodations for visiting families, friends, and workers in the surrounding area. The City has historically approved hotels with Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designations in Urban Villages, including those in City Council District 1 (Hampton Inn on South De Anza Boulevard, Aloft Hotel on Moorpark Avenue).

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-4
Special Use Permit (Page 8)
Structures
• Transitions between existing and new buildings should be gradual. The height and mass of new projects should not create abrupt changes from those of existing buildings.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 13 There is no gradual change in height or mass associated with this project. When one single story and one two story building is replaced with a six story building that does create a huge and abrupt change for the neighborhood of mostly residences.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response–4:

The project does incorporate the required stepback at the rear of the site in order to comply with Figure 5-3 found on page 64 of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The rear of the building would be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the residential area to the east. Additionally, the building would incorporate a stepback at a height of 35 feet so as not to intercept the 45-degree daylight plane in order to reduce shadows and maintain the privacy of the adjacent residences.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment–5
• Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash, and storage areas and rooftop equipment should be located as far as possible from adjacent residences and should never be located next to residential properties without fully mitigating their negative effects.

Analysis: The rear of the building would be set back 20 feet from the residential area to the east. Additionally, the building would incorporate a stepback at a height of 35 feet to reduce shadows and maintain the privacy of the adjacent residences. Blank walls would be mitigated with variations in color and materials as well as the addition of landscaping to the perimeter of the site. Materials would be varied, including natural wood paneling, architectural glazing, white sand stucco, and exposed gray concrete. All loading and trash facilities would be located in an enclosed loading and service area located at the southern end of the building along South Winchester Boulevard.

Based on the project diagrams ( Appendix A Project Plans) trash facilities are located to the north of the proposed project adjacent to a single-family residence. There are no mitigation measures in place for trash facilities that would be located adjacent to a single-family residence with a 5 foot setback. There are health and hygiene concerns that have not been addressed by the planning staff about the placement of trash facilities adjacent to a residence. How large are the dumpsters that would need to be rolled out to the street for trash pick up? What are the mitigation measures for the noise created by rolling the dumpster to the street for trash pick up? Is there sufficient setback to roll these dumpsters out? Would they impede the fire hose paths that are to be located on the property? We would urge the Planning Commission to follow up on all of these issues before letting this project move forward as proposed.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-5:

The project includes a fully enclosed, 13-foot by 8-foot, trash area at the north side of the building. There is a minimum 6-foot-wide pathway for trash and recycle receptacles to be rolled out of the trash enclosure and onto the street for curbside City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 14 pick-up. As conditioned in the Special Use Permit, the trash area would be required to be screened from view, covered, and maintained to discourage illegal dumping. As the trash area would be fully enclosed, it would not conflict with the ability for emergency services to access the side and rear areas of the property when necessary. Any noise from rolling dumpsters would be temporary and would only occur on days/times where trash pick-up would occur.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment–6
Special Use Permit (Page 9)
Landscaping.
• All areas not covered by structures, service yards, walkways, driveways, and parking spaces should be landscaped.
• The perimeter of the site should be landscaped to provide parking lot screening, a buffer for adjacent uses, and an attractive view from the street. • A mixed planting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the area between buildings and the sidewalk should be included
Analysis: The project includes a detailed landscaping plan. Nine existing trees would be preserved on-site. An additional 46 new trees would be planted on site. Street trees would be planted along the project frontage along Winchester Boulevard and trees would be planted along the perimeter of the site to further soften the transition between the existing residences and the hotel.

The setback to the north is 5 feet and 6 feet to the south. So the analysis provided by the planning department staff is either inaccurate or misleading as there is no space for trees.

None of the project drawings show trees along the north and south of the proposed project.

There is no softening of a transition especially for the single-family residence to the north of the hotel.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response–6:

Landscaping and planting of trees would only occur at the (rear) eastern and front (western) ends of the project site. The side setback areas would be paved walkways.

As previously stated, there are no required setbacks at the sides of the property.

Additionally, as previously discussed, there are no required stepbacks at the sides of the property.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-7

10. Special Use Permit Findings Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code d. The proposed use at the location requested will not:
i. Adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area; or
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 15 Can the city guarantee this hotel project would not impact the peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area? It is a monumental claim considering the multiple concerns that have been brought by the neighbors about the negative impacts of this project in terms of peace, health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community.
ii. Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site; What metrics were used by the city staff to make this arbitrary judgment? Did the city staff consult with an expert in this area to make this conclusion? If so, we would like to see those reports. It is a bold statement made with no facts or figures to back it up. iii. Be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare; and The traffic that this hotel would create is a public safety issue for the pedestrians and bicyclists who use Winchester Blvd. The inadequate parking at the hotel will create overflow of vehicles to the surrounding neighborhood and impact public safety of the students at Castlemont Elementary and residents alike.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-7:

A hotel is an authorized use under the General Plan land and Zoning. Hotels are commercial uses which are intended to serve people visiting from outside the area.

Hotel patrons are generally only present at the hotel during early morning and evening hours to sleep. With the exception of the small terrace on the sixth floor, facing South Winchester Boulevard, there are no outdoor uses that would negatively impact the surrounding properties. Overall, the Transportation Analysis concluded that operation of the parking lifts could momentarily block on-site circulation within the parking garage, however this blockage was determined not to substantially impact the pinch point of the project’s interface with the public right-of-way. On-site circulation blockage would not cause negative impacts to the emergency access to and around the site, pedestrian circulation, bicycle circulation, traffic safety, or delivery access since any temporary blockage would be within the parking garage.

The project is conditioned to install visible and audible signals at the garage entrances to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage.

Additional pedestrian, bicycle and transit analysis is included under the Local Traffic Analysis (LTA). As noted in the LTA section of the Transportation Analysis, 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 would install a 20-foot sidewalk along its frontage on Winchester Boulevard. The Urban Design Framework for the Winchester Urban Village contains features that strengthen the connectivity to and from Winchester Boulevard, including several potential mid-block crossings (proposed at least every 300 feet). Although a midblock crossing is identified south of Fireside Drive, it has not been identified as a City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 16 project component, as it is beyond the project site and scope. This aside, the Transportation Analysis would not be affected because it properly accounts for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the project. The mid-block crossing will be analyzed with future redevelopment near the crossing.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-8

10. Special Use Permit Findings. Chapter 20.100 of Title 20 of the San José Municipal Code e. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area; and
Analysis: As discussed above, the project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the development features in order to integrate the hotel use with the surrounding area as well as the planned uses and building forms as envisioned in the South Winchester Urban Village Plan.

The proposed site is not adequate considering it lacks the minimum 10 foot side setback required to the single-family residence to the north, as required in the San Jose Municipal Code 20.40.270 – Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-8:

As shown in the project plans and outlined in the project analysis in the Special Use Permit Resolution, the project does meet all minimum required heights, setbacks, parking and loading, utility and service areas, and landscaping. As previously discussed, a minimum 10-foot side setback is not required for the subject site, pursuant to the approved Winchester Boulevard Urban Village plan.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Comment-9

17.12.120 - Local Amendments to the 2019 California Fire Code.

The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the 2019 California Fire Code and shall be deemed to replace the crossreferenced sections of the 2019 California Fire Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter.

Findings
The amendments set forth in 17.12 are reasonably necessary because of the following local geological, topographical and climatic conditions:

I. The City of San José is located within a very active seismic area. Severe seismic action could disrupt communications, damage gas mains, cause extensive electrical hazards, and place extreme demands on both private fire protection systems and equipment. The City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 17 limited and widely dispersed resources of the Fire Department could result in failure to meet and provide the fire protection and life safety needs of the community.

II. The local geographic, topographic and climatic conditions pose an increased hazard in the acceleration, spread, magnitude, and severity of potential fires in the City of San José, and may cause disruptions in operation of private fire protection systems and equipment and delayed fire response time, allowing for further fire growth and spread.

The lack of a report from the San Jose Fire Department prior to the approval of the Special Use Permit, shows the disregard of the Planning Department in terms of the safety of the surrounding residences and the larger community. Considering the local geography and San Jose being a very active seismic area.

SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-9:

As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic Section 4.17 of the IS/MND, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The project includes aerial access for fire apparatus vehicles at the project frontage on South Winchester Boulevard,

29.2 feet from the proposed building. The California Fire Code requires a distance between 15 to 30 feet. Final plans would be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of Building Permits to ensure that the project adheres to all California Fire Code requirements. Please note, Building Permits would not be issued for projects that do not comply with any applicable Fire and Building Code requirements.

Additionally, staff confirmed with Fire Department staff that project may proceed to a hearing prior to the approval of Fire Variance. See the attached correspondence, dated September 22, 2021, between Planning staff and the Fire Department in Attachment A below.

Jeffrey and Jackie Williams (WILLIAMS)
The April 1, 2022 comment letter from Jeff and Jackie Williams is referred to as WILLIAMS herein.

WILLIAMS Comment-1
April 1, 2022
Subject: Appeal of Special Use Permit
Regarding: Planning Director Hearing of Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

We are submitting this letter of appeal on behalf of the residents of the Hamann Park neighborhood that would be impacted by this proposed hotel. Please note that in submitting this appeal we strongly support one of the key tenets of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan that “New development within the Urban Village should be City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 18 well integrated within, and respectful of, and compatible with adjacent existing neighborhoods”.

The lack of parking and whether the project is truly in compliance with the City of San Jose Parking Code (Special Use Permit, Page 6) are significant areas of concerns for us. We are specifically concerned that the calculation for the reduction in the required off-street vehicle parking spaces, referred to in the Project documents as the “TDM Reduction Request”, has not received the appropriate amount of independent analysis and verification. Up until now the Planning Department has relied on the Developer’s representation in the project's Operations Plan to corroborate the number of workers onsite that was used in the TDM Reduction calculation. However, we have made the Planning Department aware on more than one occasion (See Attached Letters) that the Developer's Operations Plan 1) does not include a shuttle driver (that is listed in the planning documents), 2) only includes one valet, not the 2-3 valets Hexagon indicated would be required to mitigate traffic issues, 3) the total number of housekeepers included (6) which industry experts have told us is insufficient to support this 119 room hotel and 4) the shifts for the housekeeping staff were set to keep workers on-site during any shift to no more than ten, which was clearly stated by the Developer in the Operations Plan, and is not reflective of hotel industry operating norms and standards. Therefore, we strongly believe the Developer's Operations Plan as submitted understates the number of workers onsite. If that is the case, the submitted TDM Reduction calculation of 49% is incorrect.

The gist of the responses we have received addressing the Operations Plan deficiencies noted above have been that the Planning Department solely relies on the Developer’s representations and that there is a TDM Plan in place. Even after being made aware of our concerns, they have not addressed the fundamental question - Is the number of workers on-site that was used for the TDM Reduction calculation correct? As stated in Section 20.90.220 of the San Jose Parking Code a TDM Reduction Request can be "up to fifty percent". (49% would then be the maximum allowable) So, if the TDM Reduction calculation is greater than the amount allowable under the Code the project could not be approved. However, if the TDM Reduction request is 21% to 49%, then a TDM Plan is required for the project to be approved. Therefore, following the Parking Code requirements, the required first step is that a TDM Reduction calculation be completed to determine if the project qualifies for a reduction in the required off street parking spaces.

Only then if the project does qualify for a reduction in the required off-street vehicle parking spaces, a TDM Plan has to be developed and implemented that mitigates the project’s reduced amount of parking. The TDM Plan outlines the mitigation actions that deal with the parking and transportation issues resulting from projects with a 21% to 49% TDM Reduction Request and only comes into play after the TDM Reduction calculation is completed. The TDM Plan actions should not be taken into account when determining the maximum number of workers on-site during any shift when the TDM Reduction calculation is prepared. For example, even if a valet, housekeeper or shuttle driver is dropped off to City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 19 work his/her shift, they are on-site and should be included in the TDM Reduction calculation. A worker physically at the hotel during any shift is a worker on-site, and all workers on-site should be counted when preparing the TDM Reduction calculation. Not counting them would be akin to saying that since a hotel guest may arrive in an Uber, the number of hotels rooms used in the TDM Reduction calculation could be reduced.

So, we ask - Doesn't the Planning Department have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of San Jose to thoroughly investigate our concerns with the deficiencies in the Developer's Operations Plan to ensure that the TDM Reduction request calculation is accurate and in compliance with the City of San Jose Parking Code prior to approving this project?
We request the Planning Commission delay the approval of the Special Use Permit for this project and require that the Planning Department complete a thorough and independent analysis of the validity and accuracy of the Developer’s Operations Plan. We also request that the results of analysis be presented to the neighborhood and the Planning Commission before any decision is made to approve any permit related to this project.

We appreciate your attention to these concerns.

Respectfully,
Jeffrey Williams
Jacqueline Williams
WILLIAMS Response-1:

The General Plan, Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, and Zoning Code support maximizing parking reductions and encouraging the use of alternative modes of transit, especially in areas designated as Urban Villages. Generally, the Zoning Code would require 129 vehicle parking spaces for this project. Pursuant to Section

20.90.220 of the San José Municipal Code, a parking reduction of up to 50 percent of the required parking spaces may be permitted for sites within a Growth Area with the implementation of a TDM Plan. The project would provide 66 vehicle parking spaces with the implementation of a TDM Plan to allow for an approximately 49 percent parking reduction. A TDM Plan, dated January 27, 2021, was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, which reviewed the possibility of an approximately 49 percent parking reduction. In addition to providing the required bicycle parking spaces, showers, and lockers, the project would also implement additional TDM measures in accordance with Section 20.90.220 of the San José Municipal Code. 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 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 City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 20 floor has a loading space for delivery trucks. As a Condition of Project Approval, the project would implement the TDM plan and any violation of the TDM plan would be subject to revocation, suspension, or modification of the permit.

Mike and Galina Drabkin (DRABKIN)
The April 1, 2022 comment letter from Mike and Galina Drabkin is referred to as DRABKIN herein.

April 1, 2022
To: San Jose Planning Commission
Subject: Appeal of Special Use Permit
Regarding: Planning Director Hearing of Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

We request the Commission’s attention to review several problematic aspects of the Special Use Permit, which was approved last week for demolition and subsequent construction at this site. We appeal to the Commission to properly and promptly address these issues before considering any additional permit requests for this site. These issues were raised in writing and in public comments at the Director’s hearing reference above.

DRABKIN Comment-1
Special Use Permit – General Plan Conformance
Attractive City Policy CD-1.1 (page 3) talks about design controls, applied to all development projects, for “enhancement and development of community character.” The great majority of it consists of one- and two-story single-family homes and two-story apartment buildings. The tallest structure in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is the 3-story office building at 1245 Winchester Blvd. Hamman Park is a residential neighborhood, whose residents are frequently seen enjoying a leisurely walk or a bicycle ride through our streets. Often, these folks are accompanied by a small child or a pet. Both the award-winning Castlemont elementary school and Monroe middle school are located within a couple of minutes’ walks from the project site. Many of the homeowners have lived in this neighborhood for decades.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 21 Given the above, it is extremely difficult to understand how a 6-story hotel would enhance the character of this neighborhood. Quite the opposite, the increased noise and traffic, associated with hotel operations would negatively affect its peace and serenity. With availability of parking not currently an issue in this neighborhood, the residents and their guests would be unduly challenged to find parking spaces due to hotel guests and employees, using the same streets for free and convenient parking. Add to that the fact that as a business, the hotel does not have any connection to the community, and it becomes apparent that the community character indeed will not be enhanced by this project.

DRABKIN Response-1:

See SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-1, SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-2, and SALIUHUE/MARIKAR Response-3 above.

DRABKIN Comment-2
Special Use Permit – Special Use Permit Findings
Comment: Section 10(d) talks about what the proposed use (i.e. the Hotel) will NOT do, such as “adversely affect the peace, health, safety, morals, or welfare”; “impair the utility or value of property”; and “be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare” of the residents in the surrounding area. The Planning Department’s analysis that follows more or less just repeats these points, without providing any explanation of how these conclusions were arrived at.

The Hamman Park neighborhood residents strongly disagree with the above statements. In fact, it is precisely because we feel our quality of life, our safety, and values of our homes will be negatively affected by the Winchester Hotel, we have been expressing our opposition to this project for the last two years. The City needs to substantiate these claims by doing proper research and analysis, in order to convince the residents, if the community’s support indeed matters to the City.

DRABKIN Response-2
See SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-7 above.

DRABKIN Comment-3
Question raised at the 3/23 Planning Director’s Hearing Why weren’t Hexagon Consultants’ Traffic Analysis and TDM reports updated after several changes to the project plans, especially to the ground floor plan? This question was not satisfactorily addressed at the 3/23 hearing. Dr. Askari’s only response was that Hexagon already performed 2 years’ worth of studies, probably implying that they’ve done enough work, and no further analysis is needed. In addition, he mentioned that the hotel operator will probably use outside companies to bring employees to the site and pick them up, and further, he mentioned likely use of QR codes for Uber services and City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 22 self-driving cars in the future, alluding that this is the vision of the City Council for San Jose 10 years down the line.

Leaving aside the futuristic projections, the issue here is that when some of the main project documents, used to estimate the degree of the project’s impact on the community, are not based on the latest available project plans, the validity of the entire project is brought into question. We urge the Planning Commission to insist that Hexagon or a similar entity complete the studies, using the current project plans.

DRABKIN Response-3:

The Transportation Analysis, dated June 18, 2020 (Appendix H of the IS/MND), prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, states that the loading zone may have to be moved on-site per the City’s discretion. As noted in the comment, the loading and delivery zone was moved on-site and is adjacent to the driveway entrance to the underground garage. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic Section 4.17 of the IS/MND, vehicles exiting the project site driveway on South Winchester Boulevard would be able to see approaching traffic on northbound South Winchester Boulevard at least to Payne Avenue located approximately 450 feet to the south. Therefore, the Transportation Analysis concludes that the project driveway on South Winchester Boulevard would meet the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials minimum stopping sight distance standards.

The recommendation to have the project include visible and/or audible warning signals at the garage entrances to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of vehicles exiting the parking garage, is also being incorporated into the project.

Additionally, the project is required to implement 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
Implementation of the measures outlined above would ensure the project meets the provisions for vehicle parking reduction. A Condition (#8) to the Special Use Permit resolution has been added requiring the applicant to provide an off-site parking arrangement, should the project fail to maintain the required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Any off-site parking arrangement would be reviewed for consistency with Chapter 20.90 of the Zoning Code, as amended. If an City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 23 off-site parking arrangement cannot be found, the permit may be subject to revocation, suspension, or modification of the permit in accordance with Section

20.100.350 of the Zoning Code until the issue is rectified.

DRABKIN Comment-4
At the 3/23 Planning Director’ Hearing I specifically asked, but never received an answer, to the following question:

Where would the REPLACEMENT PARKING be in case that the project fails to maintain a TDM program? Why is that location has not been made public? Hexagon TDM Plan, dated January 27, 2021, page 12:
e. For any project that requires a TDM program:
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.

At the 3/23 Planning Director’ Hearing I specifically asked, but never received an answer to the following question: No dedicated Uber drop-off spot(s) indicated on the plans. Why is this issue not being addressed? I would like to know where the car sharing services will be picking up and dropping off passengers. Where would these vehicles be located on-site? In addition, I would like to know where would Guest shuttle park? See the requirement from page 13 of Hexagon TDM study (currently, there is no location indicated on the project plans).

Hexagon TDM Plan, dated January 27, 2021, page 13:

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.

I would very much appreciate the answers to the above questions, as those issues will affect the Winchester Hotel project. If not addressed, the above-mentioned problems will negatively affect the parking situation in the surrounding neighborhood, as overflow cars, ride-share services, and shuttles will all vie for spots on the adjacent streets.

DRABKIN Response-4:

A Condition (#8) to the Special Use Permit resolution has been added requiring the applicant to provide an off-site parking arrangement, should the project fail to maintain the required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The off-site parking arrangement would be reviewed for consistency with Chapter 20.90 of the Zoning Code, as amended. If an off-site parking arrangement cannot be found, the permit may be subject to revocation, suspension, or modification of the permit in accordance with Section 20.100.350 of the Zoning Code until the issue is rectified.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 24 Project pick-up and drop off would occur entirely within the parking garage. There is a dedicated turn around space at the furthest point of the garage from the entrance.

Brian and Helen Matsumoto (MATSUMOTO)
The April 1, 2022 comment letter from Brian and Helen Matsumoto is referred to as MATSUMOTO herein.

MATSUMOTO Comment-1
April 1, 2022
To: San Jose Planning Commission
Subject: Appeal of Special Use Permit Appeal
Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd, San Jose Dear Honorable Chair and San Jose Planning Commission Members:

I would like to call attention to Fire Safety and related concerns.

Fire safety and mitigation is of utmost importance to the community with regards to any proposed project at the 1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd address. On page 27 of the ‘SP20-016 SPECIAL USE PERMIT_approved_Planning Director Hearing_03.23.2022’ document, item 39, Bureau of Fire Department Clearance for Issuing Permits, states: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the project must comply with the California Fire Code as adopted or updated by the city.

In the Planning Director Public Hearing meeting on March 23, 2022 for SP20-016, it was clearly stated that a Fire Variance is necessary for this project.

However the fire safety plan / Fire Variance is only considered at the building permit approval phase. According to OSHA, “The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus...ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible.” Developments on appropriately sized lots along Winchester have clearly marked fire lanes for fire truck access: A Grace Subacute, 1250 S. Winchester; Lynhaven Apartments, 919 S. Winchester; Villa Cortina, 801 S. Winchester. As noted, the North and South access of this project is 5’6” and 6’ 0” respectively. Fire-fighting with the aid of a truck is limited to frontal aerial coverage. A fire at the mid to lower levels in the rear of the building will not be accessible with only frontal aerial coverage. Are the side setbacks of 5’ or less sufficient for fire fighters to navigate with ladders and devices from the front access to the back of the structure? Also, the access would need to be maintained to always be clear.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 25 In addition, the document “1) Initial Study_1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd Hotel PROJECT ” dated May 2021, on page 148, section 4.15.4, discusses the Impact for the need of new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

It is stated, paragraph 1, “The proposed project would replace two commercially-used buildings with a 119-guestroom hotel. Development of the site would incrementally increase the need for fire protection services but would not significantly impact the response time or require construction of new facilities.” Paragraph 2, “Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Fire Code standards”. However, the Fire Variance has not been submitted to be approved yet. The community has raised concerns in regards to the fire-fighting capabilities especially in the rear of the bldg.

Paragraph 3, “The General Plan EIR evaluated the need for new fire stations with buildout of the General Plan and concluded that implementation of the general plan would result in an increase in calls for fire protection services but would not result in the need for construction of fire stations in excess of those currently planned.” This clearly outlines that additional fire stations are currently planned to support this project and others in the Urban Village Plan. As this is a necessary step for a comprehensive fire safety and protection, the additional fire stations will need to be in service and functional prior to any high rise construction project. Commencement and completion of a high rise project without the necessary number of fire fighting facilities/stations, would place not only the project but also the surrounding neighborhoods at risk. This will result in a gross negligence for fire safety.

As fire safety is a concern not only for the occupants/guests in this project but also for the general public. Fire safety is also an integral part of the General Plan EIR. The Fire Variance should be addressed and made public as part of the initial design and prior to the Special Use Permit approval. This would allow for corrections to address any building design deficiencies related to the project and necessary access surrounding the building for fire fighting equipment.

In addition we believe that the currently planned additional fire stations need to be addressed and made public as to the scheduled timeline of when these are to be operational. This is essential to provide the additional fire fighting capabilities with the increase in building size of this project from the current existing two smaller structures.

Respectfully,
Brian and Helen Matsumoto
Matsumoto Response-1:

See SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-9 above
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 26 Tom and Gail Morman (MORMAN)
The March 31, 2022 comment letter from Tom and Gail Morman is referred to as MORMAN herien.

Comment MORMAN - 1
To: San Jose Planning Commission Chair Rolando Bonilla, Vice Chair George Casey and Planning Commission Members Subject: Appeal of Planning Director Hearing: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S Winchester Blvd, San Jose Dear Mr. Bonilla and Planning Commission Members
Addressing the Draft Special Use Permit SP20-016,
Item 3: General Plan Conformance
1) “The project site has an Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial.” P2, Draft Special Use Permit
2) Winchester Urban Village Plan: Neighborhood/Community Commercial Land Use Designation (3.3-1): “This designation is applied to smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester Boulevard and abutting single-family residences.

Given the size of the parcels, parking requirements in the zoning code and the urban design step down policies, these properties are appropriate for the location of smaller commercial businesses. Neighborhood/Community Commercial uses should have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community. These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use and public interaction. Also, this designation supports the neighborhood servicing retail and small businesses along Winchester Boulevard.”
3) Winchester Urban Village Plan: Urban Village Commercial Land Use Designation (3.3-1) “The Urban Village Commercial Land Use designation is applied to properties on Winchester Boulevard and Moorpark adjacent to, and on the south side of Interstate 280. This area was identified as an opportunity for new commercial development that could build off the success in the adjacent Santana Row/Valley Fair Urban Village. This designation supports commercial activity that is more intensive than that of the N/CC land use designation. Appropriate uses in this designation include a variety of commercial uses, mid-rise office buildings and hotels…” City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 27 4) The Staff Analysis states (p3, Draft Special Use Permit): The site is in close proximity to Santana Row, a large employment and shopping destination located to the north of the subject site. The hotel use would provide a necessary service for existing and future demand from business travelers and visitors.
5) We concur with the Staff Analysis that hotel use would do exactly that, which is why the hotel belongs where the land use designation is Urban Village Commercial Land.
6) We wholeheartedly support the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan and the Winchester Urban Village Plan. We ask that the Neighborhood/Community Commercial Land Use designation be implemented so that the land use conforms to the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan (p19, 3.3-1) ---“appropriate for the location of smaller commercial businesses” ---“uses should have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community’
---“These uses should be designed to promote this connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use and public interaction”
---“this designation supports neighborhood servicing retail and small businesses along Winchester Boulevard.

MORMAN Response-1
See SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-3 above.

Mabel Cheng (CHENG)
The April 1, 2022 comment letter from Mabel Cheng is referred to as Cheng herein.

April 1, 2022
To: San Jose Planning Commission
Subject: Appeal of Special Use Permit
Ref. Planning Director Hearing on Wednesday March 23, 2022, Agenda Item #4 (SP20-016) 1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd., San Jose
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

We are the residents of the Hamann Park neighborhood that would be impacted by this project. Many of us worked with the City in developing the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and were supportive of this engagement. We are aware of the City’s economic City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 28 goals and tax base objectives, and very much support the City’s efforts to attain some balance in the tax base/services delivery.

We request the Commission’s attention to review several problematic aspects of the Special Use Permit, which was approved last week for demolition and subsequent construction at this site. We appeal to the Commission to properly and promptly address these issues before considering any additional permit requests for this site. Let us draw your attention to the topics listed on the following pages, according to the sections of the Special Use Permit.

These issues were raised during the meeting referenced above, but were not directly or adequately addressed. Most importantly, the current project plans are in violation of municipal code 20.40.270.

We appreciate your attention to these concerns.

Mabel Cheng, 1235 Redoaks Dr, San Jose
CHENG Comment-1
Special Use Permit, Facts and Findings (numbering corresponds to that of the SUP) • 5. Municipal code 20.40.270 - Side setback
Please reference the following municipal codes:
o Municipal code 20.40.200 - Development standards
Table 20-100
Zoning district CP (Commercial Pedestrian)
Minimum setback, side, interior:
none; or as established in approved Urban Village Plan
o Municipal code 20.40.270 - Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot.

The project site and the residential property to the north are both interior lots, which means one side faces the street, and the other 3 sides are shared with neighboring properties. Municipal code 20.40.270 clearly requires a side setback of at least 10 ft between a commercial building and a neighboring residential property line. However, the project plans currently indicate a side setback of only 5 ft 6 in. This inconsistency needs to be addressed immediately. Correction of this oversight will also improve the fire department access to the side and rear of the building.

CHENG Response-1:

The property adjacent to the subject site to the north is designated Neighborhood/Community Commercial on the General Plan and Winchester Urban Village land use plans. The property to the south is designated Public/Quasi-Public City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 29 on the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village land use plans.

Pursuant to the Urban Village plan, a side setback is only required if the adjacent properties are designated either Urban Residential or Residential Neighborhood. As neither properties adjoining the property to the north or south are designated Urban Residential or Residential Neighborhood, the side setbacks of 5 and 6 feet conform with the required side setbacks are adequate. Additionally, in accordance with Senate Bill 1333 (SB1333), the property to the north would be required to be rezoned to a commercial zoning district that conforms with the Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation. As part of the City’s efforts to comply with SB1333, the subject site to the north would be rezoned to a conforming zoning district to the Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation.

CHENG Comment-2
(9. Site Development Permit Findings:)
9a. “the hotel would be consistent with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Community Commercial.” We take issue with the claim that the hotel would be consistent with the Winchester Urban Village NCC land use. The proposed hotel would not "have a strong connection to, and provide services and amenities for, the community."
CHENG Response-2:

See SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-3 above.

CHENG Comment-3
9b. “The Site Development Permit, as approved, conforms with the Zoning Code and all other provisions of the San José Municipal Code applicable to the project” The hotel plans do not conform with the minimum 10 ft required side setback on the north side of the property facing residential homes per municipal code 20.40.270.

CHENG Response-3:

See CHENG Response- 1 above.

CHENG Comment-4
9e. “The orientation, location and elevation of the proposed buildings and structures and other uses on the site are compatible with and are aesthetically harmonious with adjacent development or the character of the neighborhood."
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 30 Comment: We strongly disagree that a 6-story hotel located 5.5 ft from a single-story residential home can be deemed "aesthetically harmonious" and "compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

CHENG Response-4:

The project complies with all height, setback, and stepback requirements as required by the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The subject site is located within the Winchester Urban Village which allows for a maximum height of 65 feet (75 feet with architectural projections such as elevator shafts and mechanical equipment).

The project’s maximum height of 74 feet, 6 inches complies with the maximum allowable height of the Urban Village. The project does incorporate the required stepback at the rear of the site in order to comply with Figure 5-3 found on page 64 of the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan. The rear of the building would be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the residential area to the east. Additionally, the building would incorporate a stepback beginning at a height of 35 feet so as not to intercept the 45-degree daylight plane in order to reduce shadows and maintain the privacy of the adjacent residences. While staff is sensitive to the resident concerns regarding the height and setbacks of the building, this is also the first development of its kind in this part of the Urban Village.

CHENG Comment-5
9g. "trash facilities are sufficient to maintain or upgrade the appearance of the neighborhood."
o Due to the inadequate building setback on the north side of the planned hotel, in violation of municipal code 20.40.270, there is no room for a commercial trash collection service vehicle. Thus there would be an unsightly, malodorous dumpster positioned at the curb one day per week in a Commercial Pedestrian zone. At best, this is certainly not an "upgrade to the appearance of the neighborhood". At worst, this may be a safety issue, should it interfere with automobile, bicycle, and/or pedestrian traffic.
o City dumpster trucks have lifting forks positioned at the front of the truck. When the dumpster is in proper position to be lifted by the truck driving northbound on Winchester Blvd., the dumpster will be occupying one of the 3 active driving lanes (post-expansion). Weekly positioning of the trash dumpster in an active lane of Winchester Blvd. would be in direct violation of municipal code

13.24.010, which concerns removal of obstructions.
o Winchester Blvd. is designated to be a Grand Boulevard in the Winchester Urban Village Plan, which requires:
▪ High standards of design, cleanliness, landscaping, gateways, and wayfinding
▪ If there are conflicts, transit has priority
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 31 Locating a dumpster in the vehicle roadway, on a Grand Boulevard, near an Active Node of the Winchester Urban Village, does not satisfy high standards of design.
o Further, there are logistical issues with rolling a heavy dumpster into the street.

Project plans indicate no ramp at the sidewalk. Rolling a dumpster over a standard-height curb would (1) generate loud dumpster noises during overnight hours, which would create a public nuisance, and (2) endanger the employee(s) tasked to do so.

CHENG Response-5:

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, 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. 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.

CHENG Comment-6
9h. “"Traffic access, pedestrian access, and parking are adequate." Traffic access for pick-up, drop-off, and regular guest use is solely accessible via the valetonly parking garage. This will be a bottleneck during peak hours, and will endanger the safety of pedestrians along Winchester. The claim that parking is adequate is not justifiable.

The developer has not provided a realistic staffing and parking plan for the hotel. For example, it is not reasonable to expect that a security contractor’s employer will drop off and pick up a security guard for every hotel shift, in order to avoid the need to provide adequate parking for such employees.

CHENG Response-6:

As shown on the project plans, the valet queuing space is located over 80 feet from the garage entry at the sidewalk, and therefore, should a queue of cars form for valet services, they would queue within the garage. 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. The Delivery and Loading zone is located adjacent to the garage entry. Per the Transportation Analysis, the project would not have a significant transportation/traffic impact. Based on the Operations Plan provided, a security guard would be provided on site. The hotel would also provide security cameras on site. If the provision of a additional security guard requires additional parking, the applicant may be required to amend their Transportation Demand Management Plan with a Special Use Permit Amendment. Additionally, a City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 32 security guard is not a Zoning Ordinance requirement for the use and operation of a hotel.

CHENG Comment-7
(10. Special Use Permit Findings)

10.2.ii."The proposed use at the location requested will not... Impair the utility or value of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site." Simply stating that "the project would not impair the utility or value of property... in the vicinity of the site" is, on its face, not credible. This cannot simply be stated without substantiation or justification. 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 properties.’
CHENG Response-7
A hotel, by nature, would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, morals, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. As previously discussed, the project conforms with all height, setback, stepback, parking, circulation, and noise requirements. The City has consistently approved the construction and use of hotels, including those within Urban Villages, without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Hotels are commercial uses which are intended to serve people visiting from outside the area. Hotel patrons are generally only present at the hotel during early morning and evening hours to sleep. With the exception of the small terrace on the sixth floor, facing South Winchester Boulevard, there are no outdoor uses that would negatively impact the surrounding properties.

CHENG Comment-8

10.e. "The proposed site is adequate in size to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate the use with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area"
This would only be true if the property were larger and/or the hotel were smaller.

CHENG Response-8
As discussed in the project analysis, the project does conform with the required height, setback, parking, loading, and landscaping standards for a project within the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District and within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 33 CHENG Comment-9
10g. “Demolition of the existing commercial structures and the construction of the hotel project would not have an unacceptable negative affect on adjacent property or properties as it complies with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Urban Village use, standards and policies.”
Comment: The claim that there would be no unacceptable negative vibration effect on adjacent properties stands in stark contradiction with IS/MND section 4.13.6b, which plainly states that expected vibration levels at adjacent residential structures due to demolition and construction would exceed the City’s 0.2 inch per second PPV limit by more than a factor of

6. As the owner of one of said adjacent residential structures, we find this completely "unacceptable".

Further, building plans show excavation to a depth of at least 14’ 6” on the northern and southern property lines. This does not even include additional excavation to lay footings and drive pilings to support the building foundation structural members. Typically, such concrete retaining walls require additional excavation outside of the final retaining wall to position temporary concrete forms during construction. How would the builder propose to perform these excavations inside the boundary of the neighboring property? How does the City justify disturbing the soil that supports the neighboring residential home at 1204 S.

Winchester to this extent? How does the City propose to guarantee that the foundation and structure of this home will not incur substantial damage as a result of demolition and construction activities? We understand that this residence includes a basement, which would make it especially susceptible to damages from vibration and adjacent excavation.

We will recommend that the property owner at 1204 S. Winchester respond to projectrelated property permissions with the following levels of hospitality:
o Pre-demolition structural inspections and subsequent follow-up inspections to assess damages to their home resulting from construction-related activity should be welcomed.
o Any workers or machines that trespass onto the property for the purpose of excavation and construction should be escorted off the premises by local law enforcement.
o If any property damages are incurred during demolition or construction, a cease and desist letter should be delivered to the foreman on site immediately.

CHENG Response-9:

This comment is related to the appeal of the Environmental Determination, not the Special Use Permit. This comment is addressed in the Response to the Environmental Determination Appeal.

City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 34 CHENG Comment-10
Special Use Permit Condition, Page 17, Item 5, Conformance to Plans: “The development of the site and all associated development and improvements shall conform to … the San José Building Code (San José Municipal Code, Title 24).”
Please ensure that approved plans are in compliance with all municipal codes prior to issuing associated demolition or construction permits.

CHENG Response-10:

The approved plans were reviewed for consistency with applicable codes and requirements. If the project moves forward to the building permit process, the project would be reviewed for compliance with applicable Building, Fire, and other applicable requirements. This is the case across all projects in the City. Please note, Building Permits would not be issued for projects that do not comply with applicable Building, Fire and other Code requirements.

CHENG Comment-11
Special Use Permit Condition, Page 19, Item 13, Conformance with Municipal Code. “No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the San José Municipal Code.”
Project plans are currently in violation of municipal code 20.40.270 (Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot). Please ensure that approved plans are in compliance with all municipal codes prior to issuing associated demolition or construction permits.

CHENG Response-11:

See CHENG Response-1 above.

CHENG Comment-12
Special Use Permit Condition, Page 19, Item 18, Refuse. “All trash and refuse storage areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the trash or refuse container(s). Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping.”
Due to insufficient side setback, which is not in conformance with municipal code 20.40.270 (Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot), the current hotel design will not "effectively screen from view" the trash dumpster at the curb on trash day. Thus, the hotel developer’s refuse plan will not satisfy this condition which is required by the City Special Use Permit. See also item 9g above regarding other inadequate aspects of the refuse plan for the proposed hotel.

CHENG Response- 12:

See CHENG Response-1 and CHENG Response-5 above.

CHENG Comment-13
City of San José—1212-1224 S. Winchester Blvd Hotel Project Responses to Written Comments Responses to Project Appellant Comments 35

Page 27 ends

issuance of a Building Permit, the project must comply with the California Fire Code as adopted or updated by the city."
In light of the expected variances required to comply with fire code, we request that the City defer issuance of (1) this Special Use Permit, (2) the demolition permit, and (3) the construction permit, until the fire department has thoroughly reviewed and responded to the design proposal.

CHENG Response-13:

See SALIHUE/MARIKAR Response-9 above.

CHENG Comment-14

Page 27 ends

Conformance. "Prior to the issuance of any Building permit… a project construction plan conformance review by the Planning Division is required." Comment: We believe that this plan conformance review should be brought forward and conducted as early as possible. The hotel project plans are currently in violation of municipal code 20.40.270 (Side setback - Exceptions, interior lot). Plan modifications to correct this violation will reduce the footprint of the proposed hotel, and most likely reduce the number of guest rooms. The current 119 room hotel proposal is already believed to be near or below the minimum number of guest rooms for economic viability (the developer has stated that this threshold is approximately 120 rooms). Further reduction will likely cause potential investors to lose interest, which will result in a failed major project at the key southern Active Node of the Winchester Urban Village. The City should consider completion of this plan conformance review a high priority, for the purpose of risk reduction for the Winchester Urban Village Plan.

CHENG Response-14:

See CHENG Response-10 above.

Attachment A: Fire Department Correspondence
3/23/2022 Mail - Atienza, Manuel - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkAGViNTU1YzU4LWNmYjctNDFkZC05ZTVmLWJlNzE3OTYyYmE5NgAQAPW380QFp2FEnKsKX9DiW8o%… 1/2 Re: File No. SP20-016 - Winchester Hotel Project
Atienza, Manuel <[email protected]>
Wed 9/22/2021 8:31 AM
To: Sabatelli, Gordana <[email protected]> Ok, thanks Gordana. I will go ahead and get this ready for hearing then. Thanks again.

Kind Regards,
Manuel (Alec) A enza
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
From: Sabatelli, Gordana <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:36 PM
To: A enza, Manuel <Alec.A [email protected]>
Subject: RE: File No. SP20-016 - Winchester Hotel Project Hi Alec,
I am OK for project to go to hearing.

I revised the required FF, it is reduced. I stamped fire layout plan and emailed to civil. I left fire review open so we can keep project moving thru planning review. If variance is not resolved before hearing, we can carry it over to building plan review.

Regards,
Gordana Sabatelli
Associate Engineer
SJFD – Bureau of Fire Prevention
200 E Santa Clara St, 2nd Flr. Tower
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408-535-5686
Email: [email protected]
From: Atienza, Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:51 PM
To: Sabatelli, Gordana <[email protected]> Subject: File No. SP20-016 - Winchester Hotel Project
Hi Gordana,
I took over this project from Michelle Flores. The applicant is pushing for a hearing date soon but I see that the Fire Department process is still open in Amanda. I saw there was a note in Amanda regarding the number of hydrants. I have also attached the most recent plan set. Is there anything else that the applicant needs to do for Fire prior to moving to Planning approval? Let me know. Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Manuel (Alec) Atienza
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
3/23/2022 Mail - Atienza, Manuel - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkAGViNTU1YzU4LWNmYjctNDFkZC05ZTVmLWJlNzE3OTYyYmE5NgAQAPW380QFp2FEnKsKX9DiW8o%… 2/2 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
aa ne YP, oh,
CITY OF $3
SAN OSE . Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY CHRISTOPHER BURTON, DIRECTOR
DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE 1212-1224 SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD HOTEL PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (RESOLUTION NO. 80348) Pursuant to Sections 15164 and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of San José has determined that the project described below does not involve new significant effects, and the project is consistent with the project description analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project (File Nos. C19-013 and SP20-016). Therefore, the City of San José can take action on the project as being within the scope of the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project MND.

File Number and Project Name: SP20-016,1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project Project Description: A Special Use Permit to allow the demolition of two commercial structures and associated sheds and parking areas, and the construction of a six-story hotel building with 119 guestrooms, a one-level underground parking garage, and the removal of nine trees, six of which are ordinance size trees on a

0.69-gross acre site.

Location: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Council District: | The environmental impacts of this project were addressed by the MND entitled, “1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project,” that was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 80348 on January 11, 2022.

Specifically, the following impacts were reviewed and found to be adequately considered by the MND:
[Xx] Aesthetics Land Use and Planning
x] Agriculture Resources [X] Mineral Resources
Air Quality <] Noise
XX] Biological Resources Population and Housing
Cultural Resources [x] Public Services
Energy [Xx] Recreation
Xx] Geology and Soils (XJ Transportation/Traffic
[x] Greenhouse Gas Emissions [X] Utilities and Service Systems [x] Hazards and Hazardous Materials X] Wildfire
[x] Hydrology and Water Quality [{<] Mandatory Findings of Significance ANALYSIS:

On January 11, 2022, the San José City Council adopted both the rezoning application (File No. C19-013) to rezone the subject property from R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District (Ordinance No. 30713) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution (Resolution NO. 80348) for the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project.

The City Council did not take an action on the subject Special Use Permit (File No. SP20-016) to allow for the demolition of the two existing commercial structures, sheds and parking area and the construction of a sixstory hotel building with 119 guestrooms, a one-level underground parking garage, and the removal of nine trees.

The subject Special Use Permit will now be considered by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for a decision. While separate actions were taken on the project, the project analyzed in the 1212- 1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has not changed and therefore, the development scope, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures would not change. 200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3™ FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce

EXHIBIT C
There would be no new significant environmental impacts that will result from this project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162.

Maira Blanco Christopher Burton, Director
Environmental Planner Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Slt (22 CALVO Date Deputy Cc) \
EXHIBIT D – INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPENDICES (May 2021), AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS (October 2021)

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Initial Study
1212-1224 South Winchester
Boulevard Hotel Project
File Numbers: SP20-016, C19-031
May 2021
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3
rd FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

CHU CHANG, ACTING DIRECTOR

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement has reviewed the proposed project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment as a result of project completion. “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

PROJECT NAME: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project PROJECT FILE NUMBERS: C19-031 and SP20-016
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conforming rezoning from R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District and a Special Use Permit to allow the demolition of two commercial structures and associated sheds and parking areas, and the construction of a six-story hotel building with 119 guestrooms, a one-level underground parking garage, and the removal of nine trees, six of which are ordinance size trees on a 0.69-gross acre site.

PROJECT LOCATION: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard in the City of San José. The project site is east on Winchester Boulevard, approximately 450 feet northerly of Payne Avenue.

ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 279-17-020 and -021 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: Henry Cord, Cord Associates, 401 Fieldcrest Drive, San Jose, California, 95123 USA, [email protected], (408) 283-7292

FINDING
The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement finds the project described above would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. The attached Initial Study identifies one or more potentially significant effects on the environment for which the project applicant, before public release of this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), has made or agrees to make project revisions that will clearly mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO REDUCE POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
A. AESTHETICS – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

Mitigated Negative Declaration for C19-031 and SP20-016 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project

Page 2 of 6 ends

C. 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 the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

MM AIR-1.1: Construction Operations Plan
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 or Director’s designee, 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.

All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment operating on-site for more than two days and larger than 50 horsepower shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit a construction operations plan to the Supervising Planner of the Environmental Review Division of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, which includes specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met.

Other measures may be used to minimize construction period Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions to reduce the estimated cancer risk below the thresholds. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 4 Diesel Particulate
Filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel), added exhaust devices, or a combination of these measures could meet this requirement. If any of these alternative measures are proposed, the construction operations plans must include specifications of the equipment to be used during construction prior to the issuance of any demolition permits. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Impact BIO-1: Project tree removal may impact nesting bird habitats.

MM-BIO-1:

Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation removal, shall not occur during the general avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31, inclusive). If construction activities cannot be scheduled to avoid nesting season, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to avoid direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds. To avoid the destruction of active nests and protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to vegetation clearance and structure demolition.

Following commencement of construction activities, no additional nesting bird surveys would be Mitigated Negative Declaration for C19-031 and SP20-016 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project

Page 3 of 6 ends

required. If active nests are discovered, an avoidance buffer for raptors, typically 250-foot radius and 50-foot radius avoidance buffers for other birds, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed breeding/nesting is complete and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between September 1 and January 31, inclusive.

Prior to any site disturbance, such as tree removal, or the issuance of any grading, building, or demolition permits (whichever occurs first), the ornithologist/biologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, or the Director’s designee.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

F. ENERGY – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Impact HAZ-1: The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes and there is potential for residual agricultural chemicals to be found in the soil.

MM-HAZ-1:

Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permits, a qualified consultant shall collect shallow soil samples in the near surface soil in the proposed project area and tested for organochlorine pesticides and pesticide-based metals arsenic and lead to determine if contaminants from previous agricultural operations occur at concentrations above established construction worker safety and commercial/industrial standard environmental screening levels. The result of soil sampling and testing shall be provided to the City’s Supervising Planner of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and the Municipal Environmental Compliance Officer for review.

If pesticide contaminated soils, are found in concentrations above the appropriate regulatory environmental screening levels for the proposed project the applicant shall obtain regulatory oversight from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health under their Site Cleanup Program. The regulatory agency may require development of a Site Management Plan (SMP), Removal Action Plan (RAP), or equivalent document which must be prepared by a qualified environmental professional. The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety and the health of future workers and visitors. The Plan and evidence of regulatory oversight shall be provided to the Supervising Environmental Planner of the City of San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for C19-031 and SP20-016 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project

Page 4 of 6 ends

the Environmental Compliance Officer in the City of San José’s Environmental Services Department.

J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

K. LAND USE AND PLANNING – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

L. MINERAL RESOURCES – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

M. NOISE
Impact N-1: 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.

MM-N-1:

Construction Noise Logistics Plan: Prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit and implement a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting and notification of construction schedules, equipment to be used, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator.

The noise disturbance coordinator shall respond to neighborhood complaints and shall be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. The noise logistic plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement or Director’s designee of the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits.

As a part of the noise logistic plan and project, construction activities for the proposed project shall include, but is not limited to, the following best management practices:
• In accordance with Policy EC-1.7 of the City’s General Plan, utilize the best available noise suppression devices and techniques during construction activities. • Limit construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other planning approval. No construction activities are permitted on the weekends at sites within 500 feet of a residence. • Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses. • Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. • Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
• Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of “noisy” construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences.

Mitigated Negative Declaration for C19-031 and SP20-016 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project

Page 5 of 6 ends

• If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. • Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific “construction noise mitigation plan” and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses.

N. POPULATION AND HOUSING – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

O. PUBLIC SERVICES – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

P. RECREATION – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

Q. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES - The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

T. WILDFIRE – The project would not have a significant impact on this resource, therefore no mitigation is required.

U. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would implement the identified mitigation measures and would have either have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts on air quality, biological resources, and noise. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to any cumulative impact for these resources. The Project would not cause changes in the environment that have any potential to cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Before 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 15, 2021 any person may:

1. Review the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as an informational document only; or

2. Submit written comments regarding the information and analysis in the Draft MND. Before the MND is adopted, Planning staff will prepare written responses to any comments, and revise the Mitigated Negative Declaration for C19-031 and SP20-016 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project

Page 6 of 6 ends

Draft MND, if necessary, to reflect any concerns raised during the public review period. All written comments will be included as part of the Final MND.

Chu Chang, Acting Director
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
5/21/2021
Date Deputy
Maira Blanco
Environmental Project Manager
Circulation period: May 26, 2021 to June 15, 2021
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel i Initial Study City of San José May 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. i-4 Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study .................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Public Review Period ............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Consideration of the Initial Study and Project ....................................................................... 1

1.4 Notice of Determination ......................................................................................................... 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Title ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Lead Agency Contact ............................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.5 Assessor’s Parcel Number ...................................................................................................... 3

2.6 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ....................................................................... 4

2.7 Habitat Plan Designation ........................................................................................................ 9

2.8 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits ........................................................... 9 Section 3.0 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Proposed Development......................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking .................................................................................. 21

3.4 Tree Removal and Landscaping ........................................................................................... 21

3.5 Utilities ................................................................................................................................. 21

3.6 Demolition and Construction Activities ............................................................................... 21

3.7 Transportation Demand Management .................................................................................. 22 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................. 23

4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Agricultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 34

4.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 37

4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 49

4.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 57

4.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................. 67

4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 73

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 83

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 90

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 101

4.11 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................... 112

4.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 116

4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 117

4.14 Population and Housing ..................................................................................................... 142

4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 145

4.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 151

4.17 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................................ 153

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 169

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 172

4.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................. 182

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 184 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel i-2 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
References .................................................................................................................................... 187 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 187 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 169 EMC Planning Group .................................................................................................................... 193 Illingworth & Rodkin .................................................................................................................... 193 WJV Acoustics, Inc. ...................................................................................................................... 193 Cornerstone Earth Group ............................................................................................................... 193 Essel Environmental Engineering & Consulting ........................................................................... 193 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. .................................................................................... 193 Arborist .......................................................................................................................................... 193

FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Site Photographs from South Winchester Boulevard ................................................... 13 Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5 Building Rendering ...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6 Bird’s Eye View Rendering.......................................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Street Views of the Project ........................................................................................... 29 Figure 8 Street Views of the Project (continued) ........................................................................ 31 Figure 9 Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites ............................................... 121 Figure 10 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ................................................... 123 Figure 11 Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites ............................................... 125 Figure 12 Locations of Modeled Traffic Noise Receptors .......................................................... 131 Figure 13 Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise ................................................................. 133 Figure 14 Typical Construction Equipment ................................................................................ 135 Figure 15 Existing Roadways and Transit Services .................................................................... 157 TABLES
Table 1 Site Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 11 Table 2 Proposed Project Components ...................................................................................... 12 Table 3 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................. 39 Table 4 Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) ................................. 42 Table 5 Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants ................................................. 43 Table 6 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions .......................................... 43 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel i-3 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Table 7 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ......................................... 44 Table 8 Tree Replacement Ratio ............................................................................................... 55 Table 9 Private Sector Green Building Policy Applicable Projects ........................................... 70 Table 10 Zoning Ordinance Noise Standards ............................................................................ 128

APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CalEEMod Assessment and Results
Appendix C Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D EMFAC Results
Appendix E Geotechnical Feasibility Study
Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G Noise Report
Appendix H Transportation Analysis
Appendix I Transportation Demand Management Plan
Appendix J GHG Reduction Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel i-4 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAP Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CMP Congestion Management Plan
DMA Drainage Management Area
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC Emissions Factor Model
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
GHG Greenhouse Gas
LOS Level of Service
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 1 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The City of San José (City), as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of San José, California.

The project includes a rezoning of the site to from the R-1-8 Single-Family Residential to CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District File No. C19-031) to facilitate the proposed Special Use Permit (File No. SP20-016) for the development of a six-story hotel with 119 guestrooms. A total of 66 vehicle parking spaces are provided, which would be located within the proposed underground parking garage.

1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 20-day public review and comment period.

During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 20-day public review period should be sent to:

Maira Blanco, Project Manager
City of San José
Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
200 East Santa Clara Street, Third Floor
San José, California 95113
(408) 535-7837
[email protected]

1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions.

1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075[g]).

Section 1.0 Project Information
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 2 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 3 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT TITLE
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Project, File Nos. SP20-016, C19-031

2.2 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
City of San José
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Planning Division
200 East Santa Clara Street, Third Floor
San José, California 95113
Environmental Review
Maira Blanco, Planner
City of San José
Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
200 East Santa Clara Street, Third Floor
San José, California 95113
408-535-7837
[email protected]

2.3 PROJECT APPLICANT
Henry Cord, Cord Associates
401 Fieldcrest Drive
San Jose, CA 95123
Phone: 408-283-7292
Email: [email protected]

2.4 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the City of San José (City) approximately 41 miles southeast of San Francisco, 25 miles northeast of Santa Cruz, 56 miles southwest of Modesto, and 30 miles northwest of Gilroy. Surrounding cities include Sunnyvale and Santa Clara to the east, and Campbell to the south. The project site is located approximately 0.5 miles west of State Route 17, approximately 0.93 miles south of Interstate 280 (I-280), and approximately three miles southwest of Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport. The approximately 0.69-acre project site is located at 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan (Urban Village Plan). The site is located between Fireside Drive to the north and Payne Avenue to the south and consists of two commercial buildings (previously converted from singlefamily residences) and associated sheds and parking areas.

Figure 1, Location Map, presents the regional location of the project site. Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, presents the project site and surrounding land uses.

Section 2.0 Project Information
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 4 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
The project site consists of two parcels: Assessor Parcel Numbers 279-17-020 and 279-17-021 (refer to Figure 2).

2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
The project site has an Envision San José 2040 General Plan (General Plan) land use designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial (NCC) and is currently zoned as R-1-8 Single-Family Residence District. The proposed project includes rezoning the project site from R-1-8 SingleFamily Residence Zoning District to Commercial Pedestrian (CP) Zoning District to conform with the General Plan land use designation of the site, including its designation within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan.

General Plan Designation
The General Plan established the Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation to support a very broad range of commercial activity, including commercial uses that serve the communities in neighboring areas, such as neighborhood serving retail and services and commercial/professional office development. Neighborhood /Community Commercial uses typically have a strong connection to and provide services and amenities for the nearby community and should be designed to promote that connection with an appropriate urban form that supports walking, transit use and public interaction. General office uses, hospitals and private community gathering facilities are also allowed in this designation. The project site is also located within the West Valley Planning Area and the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan.

Zoning District
Current
The purpose of the Single-Family Residence Zoning District (R-1) is to reserve land for the construction, use and occupancy of single-family subdivisions. The allowable density range for the R-1 district is one to eight dwelling units per acre. Under the current R-1-8 zoning, development of up to eight dwelling units per acre would be allowed at the project site.

Proposed
The City’s Municipal Code defines the Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District as a district intended to support pedestrian oriented retail activity at a scale compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. This district is designed to support the goals and policies of the General Plan related to neighborhood business districts. The Commercial Pedestrian District also encourages mixed residential/commercial development where appropriate. As a result of being within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan, the uses and development in this district are intended to be in conformance with the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan.

City Growth Area
The Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan provides a framework to further the transition of the Winchester Urban Village area into complete neighborhood that is thoughtfully designed, pedestrian and bicyclist-friendly, and meets the needs of people of all ages and abilities.

Project Site
Source: ESRI 2019
Figure 1
Location Map
1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study
0 2 miles
Project
Location 101
1 101
Salinas
152 Gilroy
San Jose
San Francisco
Modesto
Santa Cruz
Monterey
580
5 280
680
1 99
Regional Location 1
880
280
680
101
85 17
82 87
101
Santa Clara
San Jose
Campbell
Sunnyvale
Cupertino
Milpitas
San Jose
International Airport
Section 2.0 Project Information
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 6 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Source:Santa Clara County GIS 2017, Google Earth 2018
Figure 2
Aerial Photograph
1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study
0 100 feet
S. Winchester Blvd.

Redoaks Dr.

Commercial Use
Commercial Use
Residences
Residences
Project Boundary
1212 S. Winchester Blvd.

APN 279-170-021
1224 S. Winchester Blvd.

APN 279-170-020
Section 2.0 Project Information
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 8 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Section 2.0 Project Information
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 9 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

2.7 HABITAT PLAN DESIGNATION
Development Zone: Urban Development Equal to or Greater than Two Acres Covered Land Cover Type: Urban - Suburban
Land Cover Fee Zone: Urban Areas (No Land Cover Fee)
Burrowing Owl Survey and Fee Zone: n/a

2.8 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
The City of San José is the lead agency responsible for approving the project. Discretionary approval from other public agencies is not necessary. The project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of San José:
• Rezoning the site from “R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District” to “Commercial Pedestrian (CP) Zoning District”
• Site Development Permit
• Special Use Permit
• Tree Removal Permit
• Public Works Clearance: Grading Permit
• Building Clearance: Demolition, Building, and Occupancy Permits Section 2.0 Project Information
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 10 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 11 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
This initial study provides project-level CEQA analysis for a Special Use Permit to allow the demolition of two existing structures and associated sheds and parking areas and the removal of nine existing trees, six of which are ordinance size trees. The proposed project includes the construction of a six-story hotel building with 119 guestrooms on a 0.69-acre project site (APNs 279-17-020 and -021) located at 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard. The proposed project also includes rezoning the project site from R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to Commercial Pedestrian (CP) Zoning District.

Project Site Characteristics
The project site is currently developed with two commercial buildings (previously converted from Single-Family Residences) totaling approximately 3,000 square feet (one constructed in 1948 and the other constructed in 1940), three sheds, and associated parking areas. Access is provided from South Winchester Boulevard. The project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east, and west and by commercial uses to the south; as shown in Figure 2 presented earlier. Figure 3, Site Photographs from South Winchester Boulevard, illustrates views of the existing development at the project site.

The project site is designated Neighborhood/Community Commercial under the General Plan and is within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan (Urban Village Plan), which is consistent with planned growth established in the General Plan. The site is currently zoned Single-Family Residential; however, the project proposes to rezone the site to Commercial Pedestrian. Building height in the Commercial Pedestrian zoning district is restricted to a maximum of 65 feet.

The project site characteristics are summarized in Table 1, Site Characteristics, below.

Table 1 Site Characteristics
Project Site Characteristics
Project Site 30,074.50 square feet (or 0.69 acres)
General Plan Designation Neighborhood/Community Commercial Existing Zoning District Single-Family Residence
Proposed Zoning District Commercial Pedestrian
City Growth Area Urban Village
Allowable Height 65 feet1
Existing Structures Two (2) residential buildings totaling approximately 3,000 square feet and three (3) sheds
Surrounding Land Use Residential and Commercial
SOURCE: Project Plans (Carpira Design Group 2021)
Note: Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 12 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The project includes demolition of two commercial buildings (previously converted from SingleFamily Residences) and associated sheds and parking areas, and development of a six-story hotel with 119 guestrooms reaching a height of 64 feet 7 inches. In order to accommodate the proposed hotel, the project includes a Conforming Rezoning from the R-1-8 Single-Family Residence Zoning District to CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District. The proposed hotel includes 66 vehicle parking spaces and additional spaces for bicycles and motorcycles within the underground parking garage.

The first floor of the proposed project includes a main lobby reception area, guest luggage storage, coffee station and bar area, two office rooms, and 11 guest rooms. The remaining 108 guestrooms are divided throughout floor levels two through six. The second floor also includes a gym, jacuzzi, steam room, hotel restaurant, and kitchen area.

Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan, illustrates the site plan. Figure 5, Building Rendering, illustrates the view of the proposed building from South Winchester Boulevard and Figure 6, Bird’s Eye View Rendering, provides another view of the proposed building. The full set of project plans (dated February 1, 2021) can be found in Appendix A. Table 2, Proposed Project Components, provides a summary of key project components. These components are further described in the following sections.

Table 2 Proposed Project Components
Project Component Project Details
Impervious Site Coverage 27,393 square feet (91 percent) Pervious Site Coverage 2,681 square feet (9 percent)
Number of Hotel Rooms 119
Building Height 64 feet 7 inches
Vehicle Parking Spaces 66
Bicycle/Motorcycle Parking Spaces 27 spaces/ 8 spaces
Number of Existing Trees to be Removed 9
Number of Proposed Trees to be Planted 46
Front Setback 26’-0” (first floor: 31’-0”)
Side Yard Setback 6’-0”
Side Yard Setback 6’-0”
Rear Setback 20’-0”
SOURCE: Project Plans (Carpira Design Group 2021)
4 3
2 1
S. Winchester Blvd.
4 From South Winchester Boulevard facing northeast
From South Winchester Boulevard facing east at the
1224 South Winchester Boulevard property 3
From South Winchester Boulevard facing east at the
1212 South Winchester Boulevard property 2
1 From South Winchester Boulevard facing southeast
Photographs: Carpira Design Group 2019
Source: Google Earth 2018
1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study
Site Photographs from South Winchester Boulevard
Figure 3
Project Site
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 14 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.


WINCHESTER BLVD




WOODEN FENCE TOP

OF CONCRETE CURB




COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

 
Source: Carpira Design Group 2021
1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study
Proposed Site Plan
Figure 4
0 30 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 16 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.
1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study
Building Rendering
Figure 5
Source: Carpira Design Group 2021
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 18 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.
1212-1224 S. Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study
Bird’s Eye View Rendering
Figure 6
Source: Carpira Design Group 2021
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 20 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 21 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

3.3 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
A total of 66 vehicle parking spaces are located within the underground parking basement and parking stackers will be utilized to accommodate the parking spaces. The proposed project also includes additional spaces dedicated to motorcycles and bicyclists in the underground parking basement. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from South Winchester Boulevard via a parking garage entrance at the southwestern corner of the project site. The underground parking basement of the proposed project includes parking spaces, as mentioned above, a utility room, and a 100-square foot work space in the southwest corner of the basement. The ground floor of the proposed project includes the main lobby and reception area, a coffee shop, an office, a security room, laundry room, and 11 hotel rooms.

The proposed project also includes improvements such as a new curb, gutter, and sidewalk fronting South Winchester Boulevard (refer to Sheet C3.0 in Appendix A). The proposed project includes one new driveway, the only access available to the underground parking basement, to be constructed at the southwest corner of the project site.

3.4 TREE REMOVAL AND LANDSCAPING
There are 18 existing trees in the landscaped areas onsite. The proposed project includes the removal of nine existing trees, six of which are ordinance-sized trees. The proposed project includes planting 46 trees and additional shrubs, grasses, groundcover, and vines. Refer to Sheet L.04 in Appendix A for tables listing the types of trees and landscaping proposed on the project site and Sheet L.05 for proposed tree disposition.

3.5 UTILITIES
The proposed project would connect to the existing six-inch sanitary sewer system and existing 15-inch storm drain system located in South Winchester Boulevard. Three new water line connections are proposed at the southwest corner of the project site for domestics, irrigation, and fire service water uses. These three, proposed water lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in South Winchester Boulevard. The proposed project would also connect to the existing power and gas lines.

3.6 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Project construction would include typical construction phases such as demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.

During project construction, equipment anticipated to be used includes backhoes, dozers, pavers, concrete mixers, trucks, air compressors, saws, and hammers. Trucks providing deliveries and hauling would access the project site from South Winchester Boulevard. The entire 0.69-acre site would be disturbed. The proposed project includes the cut of 11,000 cubic yards of soil. No soil fill is proposed.

Demolition of the existing structures and construction of the proposed development would take approximately 24 months. The proposed project is expected to be operational by 2023.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 22 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

3.7 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The proposed project includes a Transportation Demand Management plan (TDM) (refer to Appendix I) to reduce overall vehicles trips generated by the project and support a parking reduction. The TDM plan includes the following recommended measures to reduce vehicle trips and parking demand:
 Bicycle parking;
 On-site bicycles for guest use;
 Guest Shuttle Services;
 On-site access to car-share vehicles for hotel employees and guests;  Free annual Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Smart Passes for employees;  Financial incentives for employees who bike or walk to work; and  On-site transportation demand management coordinator and services. 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 23 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Aesthetics Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,5,16,
17,48
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,5,16,
17,47
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5,
7,10,19,
20 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,2,3,4

4.1.2 Environmental Setting
The 0.69-acre project site is currently developed with two single-family homes (converted to commercial uses) totaling approximately 3,000 square feet, and associated parking areas and sheds.

The site is surrounded by residences to the north (single-story) and east (two-story), and commercial developments to the south (single-story) and west (two-story). Adjacent to the project site, South Winchester Boulevard has no sidewalk and very little landscaping.

The project site is located within the West Valley Planning Area and, therefore, is located within a primarily residential area that is suburban in character, with some very high-density residential development near the major roadway and corridors of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Saratoga Avenue, and Winchester Boulevard. Commercial development is concentrated along major roadway corridors in single-story strip commercial and larger shopping center developments with parking fronting roadways. Visual open space in this Planning Area is primarily provided by school sites and parks within residential areas. Distant mountain ranges are visible from South Winchester Boulevard, outside the project site, and facing south (Google Earth 2020). As most of the City is relatively flat, prominent viewpoints (other than buildings) are limited.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 24 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
State
California Scenic Highway Program
Many state highways are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty. California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. The nearest state highway listed on the California State Scenic Highway System Map is I-280 (considered an eligible state scenic highway), located approximately 0.93 miles north of the project site (Caltrans 2020).

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes Community Design Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions that guide the form of future development in San José and help tie individual projects to the vision for the surrounding area and the city as a whole. The following policies are specific to aesthetic resources and apply to the proposed project:

Policy CD-1.1 Require the highest standards of architecture and site design, and apply strong design controls for all development projects, both public and private, for the enhancement and development of community character and for the proper transition between areas with different types of land uses.

Policy CD-1.7 Require developers to provide pedestrian amenities, such as trees, lighting, recycling and refuse containers, seating, awnings, art, or other amenities, in pedestrian areas along project frontages. When funding is available, install pedestrian amenities in public rights-of-ways.

Policy CD-1.8 Create an attractive street presence with pedestrian-scaled building and landscape elements that provide an engaging, safe, and diverse walking environment. Encourage compact, urban design, including use of smaller building footprints, to promote pedestrian activity throughout the City.

Policy CD-1.9 Give the greatest priority to developing high-quality pedestrian facilities in areas that will most promote transit use and bicycle and pedestrian activity. In pedestrian oriented areas such as Downtown, Urban Villages, or along Main Streets, place commercial and mixed-use building frontages at or near the street facing property line with entrances directly to the public sidewalk, provide high quality pedestrian facilities that promote pedestrian activity, including adequate sidewalk dimensions for both circulation and outdoor activities related to adjacent land uses, a continuous tree canopy, and other pedestrian amenities. In these areas, strongly discourage parking areas located between the front of buildings and the street to promote a safe and attractive street facade and pedestrian access to buildings.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 25 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy CD-1.11 To create a more pleasing pedestrian-oriented environment, for new building frontages, include design elements with a human scale, varied and articulated facades using a variety of materials, and entries oriented to public sidewalks or pedestrian pathways. Provide windows or entries along sidewalks and pathways; avoid blank walls that do not enhance the pedestrian experience.

Encourage inviting, transparent facades for ground-floor commercial spaces that attract customers by revealing active uses and merchandise displays.

Policy CD-1.12 Use building design to reflect both the unique character of a specific site and the context of surrounding development and to support pedestrian movement throughout the building site by providing convenient means of entry from public streets and transit facilities where applicable, and by designing ground level building frontages to create an attractive pedestrian environment along building frontages.

Unless it is appropriate to the site and context, franchise-style architecture is strongly discouraged.

Policy CD-1.13 Use design review to encourage creative, high-quality, innovative, and distinctive architecture that helps to create unique, vibrant places that are both desirable urban places to live, work, and play and that lead to competitive advantages over other regions.

Policy CD-1.16 Strongly discourage gates and fences at the frontage of commercial properties to maintain an open and inviting commercial character and avoid the inhospitable appearance of security barriers.

Policy CD-1.17 Minimize the footprint and visibility of parking areas. Where parking areas are necessary, provide aesthetically pleasing and visually interesting parking garages with clearly identified pedestrian entrances and walkways.

Encourage designs that encapsulate parking facilities behind active building space or screen parked vehicles from view from the public realm. Ensure that garage lighting does not impact adjacent uses, and to the extent feasible, avoid impacts of headlights on adjacent land uses.

Policy CD-1.23 Further the Community Forest Goals and Policies in this Plan by requiring new development to plant and maintain trees at appropriate locations on private property and along public street frontages. Use trees to help soften the appearance of the built environment, help provide transitions between land uses, and shade pedestrian and bicycle areas.

In addition to applicable General Plan policies, the project would be required to comply with the following City policies and guidelines, as applicable:
 San José Outdoor Lighting Policy (City Council Policy 4-3, as revised 6/20/2000);  San José Residential Design Guidelines; and
 San José Commercial Design Guidelines.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 26 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan
The following standards from the Urban Village Plan are applicable to the proposed project:

Standard DS-1 Primary pedestrian entrances for both ground floor and upper story uses shall face Winchester Boulevard.

Standard DS-2 Ground floor building frontages shall have clear, un-tinted glass or other glazing material on at least 60% of the surface area of the facade between a height of two and seven feet above grade.

Standard DS-5 The minimum floor-to-ceiling height of the ground floor commercial space shall be a minimum of 15 feet and preferably 18 to 20 feet.

Standard DS-12 New projects proposed within the Urban Village Plan over 55 feet in height must provide detailed visualizations of their proposed project that show what the project would look like from the street level, from different perspectives and distances, within the context of the neighborhood including both current and proposed projects.

Scenic Vistas and Resources
The General Plan defines scenic vistas and resources in the City as views of and from the Santa Clara Valley, surrounding hillsides, and urban skyline. Scenic vistas of the natural and man-made environment can be viewed from roadways and freeways and public trails throughout the City. Most of these views are intermittent, interrupted by street trees, tall buildings (especially those built close the roadways) and utility infrastructure. Development and redevelopment allowed under the General Plan, especially along segments of major roadways that are either elevated, or are immediately adjacent to hillside areas could affect views of natural scenic vistas of hillside areas; although this is not the case for the proposed project. Key roadways with views of hillside areas include: SR 237, Tasman Drive, Montague Expressway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santa Clara/Alum Rock, Story Road, I-280, Capitol Expressway, SR 87, SR 85, and portions of US 101.

Scenic Corridors
Scenic urban corridors, such as segments of major highways that provide gateways into the City, can also be defined as scenic resources by the City. The designation of a scenic route applies to routes affording especially aesthetically pleasing views. The project site is not located within the vicinity of any scenic corridor identified on the City’s Scenic Corridors Diagram.

4.1.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less than Significant)
The project site is currently developed and is located in a highly urbanized area. The General Plan defines scenic vistas and resources as views of and from the Santa Clara Valley, Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 27 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
surrounding hillsides, and urban skyline. 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less than Significant)
The proposed project would not be located adjacent to a state-designated scenic highway and would not impact historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Based on the City’s Historic Preservation Officer determining that a historic report is not required for the structures on the project site, the buildings on-site are not considered historic resources. Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources for further discussion on historic resources. The project area is developed, and no natural scenic resources such as rock outcroppings are present on the site or in the project area. Trees can be considered scenic resources. The project proposes to remove nine (9) existing trees onsite. The project proposes to plant new trees to offset the aesthetic impacts resulting from the removal of the existing trees. For these reasons, the project would not result in a significant impact to scenic resources
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
(No Impact)
The project site is designated by the General Plan as Neighborhood/Community Commercial and is located within a City growth area Urban Village Plan. The Urban Village Plan identifies the project site as a location intended to accommodate a mix of commercial and residential uses. Due to its location within this plan, the project site is subject to compliance with the Urban Village Plan development standards and design guidelines.

The proposed project complies with Urban Village Plan Standard DS-1, which states that primary pedestrian entrances for both ground floor and upper-story uses shall face Winchester Boulevard, and with Standard DS-2, which states that ground floor building frontages shall have clear, un-tinted glass or other glazing material on at least 60 percent of the surface area of the facade between a height of two and seven feet above grade (refer to Sheets A.24 and A.25 of the project plans). Urban Village Plan Standards DS-5 requires a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of the ground floor commercial space to be 15 feet, which the project meets (refer to Sheet A.16). Urban Village Plan Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show the urban design framework and the height restriction, respectively, designated for the project site. The project site meets each of the requirements designated for the project site as it is proposed for only commercial use (as Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 28 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
designated in Figure 5-1) and within the height restriction of 65 feet (as identified in Figure 5-2). The proposed project also conforms to the transitional height standards required for projects adjacent to residential development (see Figure 5-3 of the Urban Village Plan).

Moreover, the proposed project is compliant with Urban Village Plan Standard DS-12, which requires that new projects over 55 feet in height must provide detailed visualizations that show what the project would look like from the street level, from different perspectives and distances, within the context of the neighborhood; the project plan’s Sheets A.21 through A.27 illustrate compliance with this standard, refer to Figures 5 and 6 presented earlier and Figure 7, Street Views of the Project, and Figure 8, Street Views of the Project (continued).

Design standards for streetscape, architectural improvements, and landscaping are found throughout the Urban Village Plan. The project is subject to compliance with these standards and performance measures. Site-specific details for project materials are identified in the project plans (Sheet A.17 through Sheet A.21) and include materials such as stucco white sand for the exterior walls, wood as the walls of the side and front-facing facades, and architectural glazing throughout the proposed exterior walls. Onsite landscaping is presented on Sheets L.01 through L.04 of the project plans, with the tree disposition presented on Sheet L.05. Street improvements are identified in the Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan (Sheet C3.0 of the project plans). Review of the project plans indicates the proposed project complies with minimum requirements for height, placement of parking areas, bicycle parking, and pedestrian access. The proposed project also conforms to the setback for sidewalks fronting Winchester Boulevard, which must be 20 feet; the proposed project provides 26 feet.

The proposed project would not conflict with the policies identified in the General Plan that govern scenic quality and is consistent with the policies and standards set forth in the Urban Village plan related to aesthetics in new development.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the zoning standards identified for the project site. The project site is currently within the Single-Family Residence Zoning District (R-1-8) and is proposed for rezone to the Commercial Pedestrian (CP) Zoning District (C19-031) to conform to the General Plan land use designation of the site. Section

20.40.560, of the Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District, requires screening, such as a fence or treescape, at a property line that abuts residential uses. The proposed project includes a sixfoot high wood fence located along the boundary of the project site, in addition to treescape along the eastern border, due to that adjacent residential uses. The proposed project also complies with the height restrictions of the zoning district, which Section 20.40.200 states is the height established within an approved Urban Village Plan (i.e. 65 feet pursuant to the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan). Section 20.40.540 discusses lighting adjacent to residential properties requiring that projects shield light and ensure that light is reflected away from adjacent residential uses; the project would be required to comply with this zoning requirement in order to ensure no impacts would occur.

The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, such as the General Plan policies, the Urban Village Plan’s standards, and the Commercial Pedestrian zoning requirements; therefore, there is no impact.

Project Site Source: Carpira Design Group 2021
Figure 7
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Street Views of the Project
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 30 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Project Site Source: Carpira Design Group 2021
Figure 8
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Street Views of the Project (continued)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 32 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 33 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(Less Than Significant)
The project site is currently developed with two buildings. Therefore, the project site, in its current condition, produces sources of light and possibly glare. In addition, existing sources of light in the vicinity of the project site are primarily from adjacent residences and commercial sites, streetlights, and headlights of vehicular traffic on South Winchester Boulevard.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 34 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

4.2.1 Agricultural Resources Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5,
6 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5,
6 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5,
6 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5,
6 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5,
6 4.2.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is currently developed with two buildings, associated parking areas and sheds, and is located in an urbanized area of the City surrounded by development that includes residential and commercial uses and roadways. The project site is proposed for a rezoning from the R-1-8 SingleFamily Residence Zoning District to the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site, which is designated Neighborhood/Community Commercial.

The California Department of Conservation manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program to assess and record how suitable a particular tract of land is for agricultural purposes. In each county, the land is analyzed for soil and irrigation quality and the highest quality land is designated as Prime Farmland. The project site and its vicinity are identified as Urban and Built-Up Land (California Department of Conservation 2020).

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 35 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting
State
The California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program produces maps and statistical data for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, and the best quality land is categorized as Prime Farmland.

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes Land Use Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions that guide the form of future development in the City and help tie individual projects to the vision for the surrounding area and City as a whole. The following policies are specific to agriculture and forest resources and apply to the proposed project:

Policy LU-12.3 Protect and preserve the remaining farmlands within San José’s sphere of influence that are not planned for urbanization in the timeframe of the Envision General Plan through the following means:
 Limit residential uses in agricultural areas to those which are incidental to agriculture.
 Restrict and discourage subdivision of agricultural lands.  Encourage contractual protection for agricultural lands, such as Williamson Act contracts, agricultural conservation easements, and transfers of development rights.
 Prohibit land uses within or adjacent to agricultural lands that would compromise the viability of these lands for agricultural uses.  Strictly maintain the Urban Growth Boundary in accordance with other goals and policies in this Plan.

4.2.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
(No Impact)
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 36 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
The project site is within a highly urbanized area and is designated as Urban and Built-up Land by the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder (California Department of Conservation 2020).
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(No Impact)
The project site is proposed for a conforming zoning from Single-Family Residence Zoning District (R-1-8) to the CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site. Therefore, neither the existing zoning of the site nor the proposed zoning for the site is for agricultural use. Further, according to the City’s Public GIS Viewer, the project site is not zoned in a Williamson Act contract. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
(No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with two buildings and is proposed for rezoning from Single-Family Residential (R-1-8) Zoning District to CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District. Accordingly, there are no identified timberland production zones or forest land on the project site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland production.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with two buildings and is proposed for commercial development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
(No Impact)
The project is in an urbanized area and, therefore, the project would not involve changes that would result in the conversation of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 37 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.3 AIR QUALITY

4.3.1 Air Quality Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 1, 30,
31, 32,
33 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1, 2, 31,
32 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 33
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors adversely affecting a substantial number
of people)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1

4.3.2 Environmental Setting
Regional Climate
The City of San José, including the project site, is located within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (air basin). The air basin encompasses all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and Napa counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The air basin is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The climate in the air basin is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.

The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the north and by mountains to the east, south and west. Temperatures are warm on summer days and cool on summer nights, and winter temperatures are fairly mild. A northwesterly sea breeze flows through the valley during the afternoon, and a light southeasterly drainage flow occurs during the evening and early morning.

Wind speeds are greatest in the spring and summer and weakest in the fall and winter. Nighttime and early morning hours frequently have calm winds in all seasons, while summer afternoons and evenings are quite breezy. Strong winds are rare, associated mostly with the occasional winter storm.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 38 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Criteria Air Pollutants
The six most common and widespread air pollutants of concern, or “criteria pollutants,” are groundlevel ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. In addition, reactive organic gases are a key contributor to the criteria air pollutants because they react with other substances to form ground-level ozone. Health effects of criteria air pollutants include asthma, bronchitis, chest pain, coughing, and heart diseases.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are pollutants that may be expected to result in an increase in mortality or serious illness or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Health effects include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, damage to the body's natural defense system, and diseases that lead to death. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners).

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs.

Sensitive Receptors
Although air pollution can affect all segments of the population, certain groups are more susceptible to its adverse effects than others. Children, the elderly, and the chronically or acutely ill are the most sensitive population groups. These sensitive receptors are commonly associated with specific land uses such as residential areas, schools, retirement homes, and hospitals. In addition, certain air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, only have significant effects if they directly affect a sensitive population.

The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residents adjacent to the northern and eastern project site boundaries and the senior nursing home adjacent to the southern project site boundary (Illingworth and Rodkin 2020). There are more sensitive receptors at farther distances, such as Monroe Middle School located approximately 0.45 miles northeast of the site. In addition, there are students at Castlemont Elementary School (3 years and older), which is located approximately 0.13 miles southeast of the project site opposite Payne Avenue. This project would not introduce new sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) to the area.

4.3.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency/Federal Clean Air Act At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act required the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for several air pollutants on the basis of human health and welfare criteria. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air standards: primary and secondary standards. Primary standards set limits to protect Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 39 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
public health, including the health of sensitive persons such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.

Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

State
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is a state agency responsible for coordination and oversight of federal, state, and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. CARB oversees regional or local air quality management or air pollution control districts that are charged with developing attainment plans for the areas over which they have jurisdiction. CARB grants these regional or local air districts the explicit statutory authority to adopt indirect source regulations, including implementation of Best Available Control Technology, and transportation control measures, including ridesharing or flexible work hours.

Regional
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency with the primary responsibility for assuring that national and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the air basin. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Table 3, San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status, identifies the current attainment status within the air basin for each criteria pollutant.

Table 3 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status Criteria Air Pollutants State Standards National Standards Ozone Non-attainment Non-attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter Non-attainment Unclassified Fine Particulate Matter Non-attainment Non-attainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Lead - Attainment
SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a
The BAAQMD is charged with regulatory authority over stationary sources of air emissions, monitoring air quality within the air basin, providing guidelines for analysis of air quality impacts pursuant to CEQA, and preparing an air quality management plan to maintain or improve air quality in the air basin. The BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017 CEQA Guidelines) Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 40 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
contain instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate air quality impacts generated from land development construction and operation activities. The BAAQMD has adopted several plans in an attempt to achieve state and federal air quality standards. The BAAQMD’s currently adopted plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP defines an integrated, multi-pollutant control strategy to reduce emissions of particulate matter, TACs, ozone precursors and greenhouse gases.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following air quality-related policies that are applicable to the proposed project:

Policy MS-10.1 Assess projected air emissions from new development in conformance with the air district CEQA Guidelines and relative to state and federal standards. Identify and implement feasible air emission reduction measures.

Policy MS-10.2 Consider the cumulative air quality impacts from propose developments for proposed land use designation changes and new development, consistent with the region’s Clean Air Plan and state law.

Policy MS-10.7 In order to reduce vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion, require new development within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned transit station to encourage the use of public transit and minimize the dependence on the automobile through the application of site design guidelines and transit incentives.

Policy MS-11.1 Require completion of air quality modeling for sensitive land uses such as new residential developments that are located near sources of pollution such as freeways and industrial uses. Require new residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors to incorporate effective mitigation into project designs or be located an adequate distance from sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) to avoid significant risks to health and safety.

Policy MS-11.2 For projects that emit toxic air contaminants, require project proponents to prepare health risk assessments in accordance with air districtrecommended procedures as part of environmental review and employ effective mitigation to reduce possible health risks to a less than significant level.

Alternatively, require new projects (such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities) that are sources of TACs to be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors.

Policy MS-11.7 Consult with air district to identify stationary and mobile TAC sources and determine the need for and requirements of a health risk assessment for proposed developments.

Policy MS-13.1 Include dust, particulate matter, and construction equipment exhaust control measures as conditions of approval for subdivision maps, site development and planned development permits, grading permits, and demolition permits. At minimum, conditions shall conform to construction mitigation measures recommended in the current air district CEQA Guidelines for the relevant project size and type.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 41 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy MS-13.2 Construction and/or demolition projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos (from soil or building material) shall comply with all the requirements of the California Air Resources Board’s air toxics control measures (ATCMs) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations.

4.3.4 Impact Discussion
This section is based upon the 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel – Criteria Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions Modeling Assessment completed by EMC Planning Group on August 14, 2020 and the Winchester Hotel Community Risk Assessment prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin on August 28, 2020.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
(Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards; to reduce population exposure to pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area; and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate. This is considered to have been accomplished if there are no project-level significant impacts, or if significant impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions, but not to the extent that significant impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed project, as mitigated, does not result in significant air quality impacts, and therefore, supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Most of the 81 control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan are applicable to industrial stationary sources, or are implemented at a regional level, and not applicable to the proposed project. Control measures potentially applicable to the proposed project are included below in Table 4, Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) along with a brief consistency analysis to determine how the project either is or is not consistent with the measure.

During its construction and operation, the proposed project would not generate criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds (see the discussion in checklist question b) below). Further, the proposed project’s impact on health risks standards would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and standard permit conditions (see the discussion in checklist question c) below). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2017 CAP.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 42 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Table 4 Potentially Applicable Control Measures (2017 Clean Air Plan) Control Measure Number and Name Consistency Analysis
SS36 – Particulate Matter from Trackout The proposed project shall implement dust control measures, which are standard conditions of approval for the City. Implementation of this standard condition will address mud and dirt that could be “tracked out” from the project construction site.

SS38 – Fugitive Dust See above regarding implementation of the City’s standard condition of approval regarding dust control measures.

TR2 – Trip Reduction Programs The proposed project’s transportation demand management plan identifies the use of free shuttles to hotel guests, onsite car-share programs for hotel guests, onsite paid parking for hotel guests, free VTA smart passes for the hotel employees, and financial incentives for biking or walking to work for employees to ensure trip reductions from the project.

TR8 – Ridesharing and Last-Mile Connections See TR2 response. The project’s transportation demand management plan includes the use of onsite car-share programs for hotel guests.

TR9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and
Facilities
See TR2 response. The implementation of the project’s transportation demand management plan recommendations would reduce the VMT generated by the project by supporting bicycle usage.

BL1 – Green Buildings The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6).

NW2 – Urban Tree Planting Landscaping plans for the proposed project show 48 new trees of various species to be planted onsite. Additional screen shrubs and groundcover are also proposed throughout the project site.

SOURCE: BAAQMD 2017 (Tables 5-1 through 5-10)
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
(Less than Significant)
The City of San José use the thresholds of significance established by BAAQMD. BAAQMD has developed thresholds of significance that are used to determine whether or not the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants during operations and/or construction. The thresholds of significance for determining air quality impacts are contained in the 2017 CEQA Guidelines and are presented in Table 5, Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 43 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Table 5 Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria Air Pollutants Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions
(lb/day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lb/day)
Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 54 54 10
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 54 54 10
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 (exhaust)1 82 15 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 54 (exhaust)1 54 10
SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b
NOTE: The thresholds of significance for particulate matter emissions from project construction apply to exhaust emissions only. The BAAQMD recommends implementation of best management practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would result in new mobile, area, and energy source criteria air pollutant emissions. The criteria air pollutant emissions generated during operation of the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2.

These modifications are explained in greater detail in the memorandum of CalEEMod modeling assumptions and methodology: 1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel – Criteria Air Pollutant and GHG Emissions Modeling Assessment and model results and (Appendix B). The unmitigated operational emissions from buildout of the proposed project are summarized and reviewed against the BAAQMD thresholds in Table 6, Unmitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.

Table 6 Unmitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Total Annual Emissions (tons/year)1 0.71 1.48 1.05 0.30 BAAQMD Threshold (tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Annual Threshold? No No No No
Project Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1,2 3.89 8.11 5.75 1.64 BAAQMD Threshold (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2020
NOTES:

1. Results may vary due to rounding.

2. CalEEMod estimates operational criteria air pollutant emissions in tons per year. A U.S. ton is equal to 2,000 pounds. The emissions estimates in ton per year are multiped by 2,000 pounds to arrive at emissions volume in pounds per year. Average daily emissions (in pounds per day) are computed by dividing the annual operational emissions (in pounds per year) by the number of operational days (conservatively assuming 365 days of operation).

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 44 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
As su\mmarized in Table 6, the proposed project would generate operational criteria air pollutant emissions that do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, resulting in a less-thansignificant impact to regional air quality; the project’s contribution of operational criteria air pollutant emissions to regional air quality conditions are less than cumulatively considerable.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions include mobile source exhaust emissions, emissions generated during the application of asphalt paving material and architectural coatings, as well as emissions of fugitive dust during demolition and grading. The criteria air pollutants generated during construction of the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix B for detailed results.

Table 7, Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions below, summarizes unmitigated criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from project construction and compares them against the BAAQMD thresholds (refer to Table 5, Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants).

Table 7 Unmitigated Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emissions1 ROG NOX PM102 PM2.52
Total Annual Emissions (tons/year)3 0.69 3.71 0.41 0.2081 Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)3,4 4.31 23.19 2.58 1.30 BAAQMD Threshold (average daily emissions
in pounds/day)
54 54 82 54
Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No
SOURCE: EMC Planning Group 2020
NOTES:

1. CalEEmod results reflect building demolition export (23,828 sf) and truck trips (108).

2. Total PM emissions include fugitive dust and exhaust PM.

3. Results may vary due to rounding.

4. CalEEMod estimates construction criteria air pollutant emissions in tons per year. A U.S. ton is equal to 2,000 pounds. The emissions estimates in ton per year are multiped by 2,000 pounds to arrive at emissions volume in pounds per year. CalEEMod estimates a total of 320 construction days (see Section 3.0 of the CalEEMod results in Appendix B). Average daily emissions (in pounds per day) are computed by dividing the annual construction emissions (in pounds per year) by the number of construction days.

As summarized in Table 7, construction of the proposed project would not result in criteria air emissions that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds.

BAAQMD determined that a significant air quality impact would occur if a project does not incorporate measures to control fugitive dust emissions during construction. In compliance with General Plan Policy MS-13.1, the project would implement the BAAQMD best management practices during all phases of construction and ground disturbance.

Implementation of these measures, recommended by BAAQMD and listed below as Standard Permit Conditions would further minimize the less than significant impacts associated with the grading and construction activities.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 45 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Standard Permit Conditions
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the site with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

As discussed above, the operational and construction impacts would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance and implementation of the Standard Permit Conditions above for fugitive dust control would result in a less than significant air quality impact. The contribution of the project’s construction criteria pollutant emissions to regional air quality conditions is less than cumulatively considerable.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust and fugitive dust (PM2.5) that poses health risks for sensitive receptors. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is a known toxic air contaminant (TAC), is a component of diesel exhaust.

Illingworth & Rodkin prepared a community risk assessment (2020) to address project construction community impacts on the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors. The impact of existing sources of TACs on existing sensitive receptors was also addressed. The community risk assessment is included as Appendix C.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 46 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Construction Community Risks
The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Community risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks.

CalEEMod was used to estimate PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) and PM2.5 fugitive emissions from construction activities. The EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family homes adjacent to the northern and eastern project site boundaries (approximately 15 feet and approximately 70 feet, respectively, to the site) and the senior nursing home adjacent to the southern project site boundary, approximately 27 feet to the site. There are more sensitive receptors at farther distances. In addition, there are students at Castlemont Elementary School (3 years and older) located southeast of the project site opposite Payne Avenue, approximately

0.13 miles from the site. The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by the BAAQMD.

The maximum-modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, were used to identify the maximally exposed individuals (MEIs). The community risk assessment indicated that the construction residential MEI was located at the single-family home, situated approximately 65 feet east of the project site. The maximum increased cancer risks would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million and the maximum PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3
(Illingworth and Rodkin 2020,
Table 2). Additional modeling was conducted to determine the health risks associated with project construction activities at the nearby senior nursing home (approximately 27 feet south of the site) and elementary school (approximately 0.13 miles southeast of the site). The health risks at the nearby senior nursing home and elementary school were found not to exceed the BAAQMD’s single-source significance thresholds (Illingworth and Rodkin 2020, Table 2).

Impact AQ-1: Construction activities associated with the project indicate that the maximum cancer risk from project construction is 33.1 cases per one million, which exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the health risks to a less-thansignificant level. The maximum cancer risk from project construction, assuming infant exposure, would be reduced from 33.1 cases per million to 3.7 cases per million. The maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would be reduced from 1.46 μg/m3 to 0.29 μg/m3, and
the HI would be reduced from 0.04 to less than 0.01.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 47 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 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 or Director’s designee, 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.

Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit a construction operations plan to the Supervising Planner of the Environmental Review Division of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, which includes specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met.

The construction contractor may use other measures to minimize construction period Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions to reduce the estimated cancer risk below the thresholds. The use of equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 4 Diesel Particulate Filters or alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel), added exhaust devices, or a combination of these measures could meet this requirement. If any of these alternative measures are proposed, the construction operations plans must include specifications of the equipment to be used during construction prior to the issuance of any demolition permits. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and the Standard Permit Conditions listed in section b) above would reduce significant impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs during construction by requiring that the project contractor implement best management practices to reduce emissions of dust and exhaust and implement a plan to reduce construction particulate matter exhaust emissions by at least 70 percent, subject to review and approval of the Director’s Designee. The Standard Permit Condition and Mitigation Measure would need to be satisfied prior to issuance of grading permits and during all construction activities.

Cumulative Community Risks
Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by the air district.

A review of the project influence area indicates that traffic on South Winchester Boulevard would exceed an average daily traffic of 10,000 vehicles. Other nearby streets are assumed to Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 48 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would contribute traffic to South Winchester Boulevard. A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on South Winchester Boulevard was conducted. The refined analysis involved predicting emissions for the traffic volume and mix of vehicle types on the roadway near the project site and using an atmospheric dispersion model to predict exposure to TACs. The associated cancer risks are then computed based on the modeled exposures.

A review of the air district’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2018 geographic information systems map tool identified one stationary source with the potential to affect the MEI. This mapping tool identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts. The source identified using this tool was a gas dispensing facility. A stationary source information request was not submitted to the air district since screening risk values for the gas dispensing facility were available on the mapping tool website.

Table 3 of the community risk assessment (Appendix C, page 13) reports both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptor most affected by construction (i.e., the construction MEI). Without mitigation, the project would have an exceedance with respect to community risk caused by project construction activities, since the maximum increased cancer risk and maximum annual PM2.5 concentration exceed their single-source thresholds. The combined unmitigated annual PM2.5 concentration would also exceed the air district cumulative-source thresholds. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 the project’s risks would be lowered to levels below the single-source thresholds, and the cumulative risks would no longer exceed the cumulative threshold. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
(Less than Significant)
The proposed project is a hotel and would not result in any objectionable odors during the operational phase. Therefore, there would be no impacts from nuisance odors on adjacent residential receptors during operations. During project construction, there may be nuisance diesel odors associated with operation of diesel construction equipment on-site, but this effect would be localized, sporadic, and short-term in nature. Therefore, temporary impacts from nuisance diesel odors on adjacent residential receptors would be less than significant.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 49 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 Biological Resources Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 1,3,8
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,12
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.),
through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,5
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,5
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,3,4,5,
17,56
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,3,8,51

4.4.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is developed with two buildings and associated paved parking, and has 18 existing trees with additional ornamental landscaping present throughout the site. According to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, 147 special-status species that occur or have the potential to occur in the Plan’s study area. However, due to the disturbed/developed nature of the project site and because it is surrounded in all directions by densely developed properties, it has very low habitat value and is not expected to support special-status species, other than nesting birds. There are no wetlands or Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 50 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
riparian areas onsite; the nearest riparian habitats are the Los Gatos Creek located approximately one mile southeast of the project site, and the San Tomas Aquino Creek, located approximately 0.8- mile west of the project site.

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal and State
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1989 prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This Act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, bird nests, and eggs of over 800 native birds, including many common species.

California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, an Incidental Take Permit from the CDFW is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a state-listed Threatened or Endangered species. “Take” is defined under these laws as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species. If a project would result in the “take” of a state-listed species, then a CDFW Incidental Take Permit, including the preparation of a conservation plan, would be required.

Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into “Waters of the U.S.” including wetlands. Certain natural drainage channels and wetlands are considered jurisdictional “Waters of the U.S.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering the Section 404 permit program. The agency determines the extent of its jurisdiction as defined by ordinary high-water marks on channel banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils that are intermittently or permanently saturated, or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions naturally select for plant species known as hydrophytes that show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (soils intermittently or permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).

Activities that involve the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE. Discharge permits are typically issued on the condition that the project proponent agrees to provide compensatory mitigation which results in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value, either through wetland creation, restoration, or the purchase of wetland credits through an approved wetland mitigation bank. In addition to individual project discharge permits, the USACE also issues general nationwide permits applicable for certain activities.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 51 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Regional and Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan) covers an area of 519,506 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. It was developed and adopted through a partnership between Santa Clara County; the Cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy; the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water); the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Habitat Plan is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency is responsible for implementing the plan, and implementing entities require a permit be obtained for covered projects.

City of San José Tree Ordinance
The City maintains the urban landscape partly by promoting the health, safety, and welfare of San José by controlling the removal of ordinance trees on private property (San José Municipal Code Section 13.32). Ordinance trees are defined as trees having a main stem or trunk which measures thirty-eight (38) inches or more in circumference (approximately 12 inches or more in diameter) at a height of fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade slope. Ordinance trees are generally mature trees that help beautify San José, slow erosion of topsoil, minimize flood hazards, minimize the risk of landslides, increase property values, and improve local air quality.

The City requires a permit for the removal of any live or dead ordinance tree. The City also requires a permit for the removal of any Unsuitable Tree from any private parcel of land unless a development permit or permit adjustment has been issued pursuant to Title 20 of the City’s Municipal Code that allows the tree removal, or a tree removal permit that allows the removal of that Unsuitable Tree has first been issued and accepted by the applicant pursuant to the provisions of Municipal Code Section 13.32.

Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The City has policies to preserve, avoid, and mitigate impacts to biological resources in San José.

The following General Plan goals and policies are applicable to the project:

Policy ER-5.1 Avoid implementing activities that result in the loss of active native birds’ nests, including both direct loss and indirect loss through abandonment, of native birds. Avoidance of activities that could result in impacts to nests during the breeding season or maintenance of buffers between such activities and active nests would avoid such impacts
Policy ER-5.2 Require that development projects incorporate measures to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds.

Policy MS-21.4 Encourage the maintenance of mature trees, especially natives, on public and private property as an integral part of the community forest. Prior to allowing the removal of any mature tree, pursue all reasonable measures to preserve it.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 52 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy MS-21.5 As part of the development review process, preserve protected trees (as defined by the Municipal Code), and other significant trees. Avoid any adverse effect on the health and longevity of protected or other significant trees through appropriate design measures and construction practices. Special priority should be given to the preservation of native oaks and native sycamores. When tree preservation is not feasible, include appropriate tree replacement, both in number and spread of canopy
Policy MS-21.6 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

4.4.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Less Than Significant with Mitigation)
The project site is fully developed with two structures and associated paved parking areas in a highly urbanized area of the City where biological resources are limited. Special-status plants are not expected to occur in areas of the City already urbanized due to previous land modifications and removal of native plants (such as the project site), and because they do not support natural plant communities. Other than nesting birds, special-status animals are not expected to occur in urban areas of the City developed with structures and paving and that do not support natural plant communities since these areas do not meet habitat requirements for nesting, foraging, or cover (City of San José 2011, p. 481). Other than in riparian areas, vacant areas that support grassland, serpentine grassland vegetation, and agricultural habitats, specialstatus animal species are not expected to occur within most developed areas in San José (City of San José 2011, p. 481). Other than nesting birds, special-status species are not expected to occur on the site.

However, mature trees and other landscaped vegetation within and adjacent to the project site may provide nesting habitat for migratory birds. Raptors and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1928 and California Fish and Game Code. The removal of trees that may provide nesting habitats would be a significant impact that requires mitigation to protect potentially occurring nesting birds. The below mitigation measure would protect nesting birds that may be present on the project site and reduce the significant impact to a lessthan-significant level.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 53 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
IMPACT BIO-1: The project removes trees that may provide nesting bird habitats.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Initial site disturbance activities, including vegetation removal, shall not occur during the general avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31, inclusive). If construction activities cannot be scheduled to avoid nesting season, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to avoid direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds. To avoid the destruction of active nests and protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to vegetation clearance and structure demolition.

Following commencement of construction activities, no additional nesting bird surveys would be required. If active nests are discovered, a 300-foot radius avoidance buffer for raptors, and 50-foot radius avoidance buffers for other birds, shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed breeding/nesting is complete and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 30 and February 1, inclusive.

With implementation of the above mitigation, the project developer would be required to obtain a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of construction activities if construction activities occur within the bird nesting season. The qualified biologist would be present during the bird nesting season if the project is under construction, conduct surveys and baseline monitoring, and designate buffers so as to protect any active nests within the project area. This would reduce the potentially significant adverse impacts on nesting birds to a lessthan-significant level. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact)
The developed project site is within an urban area and does not contain any sensitive natural communities. The nearest riparian habitats are the Los Gatos Creek located approximately one mile southeast of the project site, and the San Tomas Aquino Creek, located approximately

0.8-mile west of the project site. Therefore, the City’s Riparian Corridor Protection and BirdSafe Design Policy (Council Policy 6-34), which is applicable to projects within 300 feet of a riparian corridor’s top of bank or edge of vegetation (City of San José 2016), is not applicable to the proposed project. The project would not conflict with the Riparian Corridor Policy, or have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat, and would not result in a loss of sensitive habitat.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 54 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
According to the City’s Public GIS Viewer and current aerial photographs, there are no wetlands or waterways present on, or adjacent to, the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed. Urbanized parcels in San José are not considered important for regional movement of wildlife species . Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with wildlife movement or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less than Significant)
Per the project arborist/tree evaluation report prepared by Nicholas Wages I.S.A. Certified Arborist on March 6, 2020, 18 trees are present on the site: five privets (Ligustrum sp.), two weeping bottle brushes (Callistemon viminalis), two Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta), two avocados (Persea americana), two cypresses (Cupressus macrocarpa), one camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), one locust (Robinia pseudoacacian), one ash (Fraxinus americana), and one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Of these 18 existing trees, nine would be removed for development of the proposed project and nine would be retained. Six (6) of the nine (9) existing trees proposed for removal are ordinance-sized trees (i.e. 12 inches or more in diameter); information on these ordinance-sized trees can be found on Sheet L.05 of the project plans and is provided below:

1. Tree No. 1: 14-inch diameter tree Mexican fan palm located in the northwestern corner of the site.

2. Tree No. 2: 18-inch diameter tree Mexican fan palm located in the northwestern corner of the site.

3. Tree No. 13: 30-inch diameter tree camphor located in the center of the site.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 55 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4. Tree No. 14: 36-inch diameter tree cypress located in the southwestern corner of the site.

5. Tree No. 16: 25-inch diameter tree locust located in the southeastern corner of the site.

6. Tree No. 18: 34-inch diameter tree avocado located in the southeastern corner of the site.

The proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s tree removal permitting and tree replacement requirements, as outlined in the standard permit condition below.

Standard Permit Condition
The trees removed by the proposed project would be replaced according to the City’s required replacement ratios, as provided in Table 8, Tree Replacement Ratio, below (also found on Sheet L.05 of the project plans).

Table 8 Tree Replacement Ratio
Circumference
of Tree to be
Removed
Type of Tree to be Removed Minimum Size of Each
Native Non-Native Orchard Replacement Tree
38 inches or more 5:1 4:1 3:1 15-gallon
19 to 38 inches 3:1 2:1 None 15-gallon
Less than 19 inches 1:1 1:1 None 15-gallon
SOURCE: Carpira Design Group Company 2021
NOTES: (1) X:X = tree replacement to tree loss ratio
(2) Ordinance-sized tree. Trees greater than or equal to 38 inches in circumference shall not be removed unless a Tree Removal Permit, or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees. For multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial properties, a Tree Removal Permit is required for removal of trees of any size. (3) A 38-inch tree equals 12.1 inches in diameter.
(4) A 24-inch box tree = two 15-gallon trees
(5) Single Family and Two-dwelling properties may be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio.

In the event the proposed project site does not have sufficient area to accommodate the required tree mitigation, one or more of the following measures will be implemented, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee, at the development permit stage:
• The size of a 15-gallon replacement tree may be increased to 24-inch box and count as two replacement trees to be planted on the project site, at the development permit stage. • Pay off-site tree replacement fee(s) to the City, prior to the issuance of grading permit(s), in accordance to the City Council approved Fee Resolution. The City will use the off-site tree replacement fee(s) to plant trees at alternative sites.

In accordance with the City policy 32 mitigation replacement trees are required to be planted onsite (20 native 38-inch trees, four non-native 38-inch trees, three native 19-38-inch trees, two non-native 19-38-inch trees, and three orchard 38-inch trees) (Appendix A). The species Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 56 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
proposed for planting are identified on Sheet L.04. The project proposes 46 new trees (25 trees sized at 24 inches, four trees sized at 36 inches, six trees sized at 18 inches, and 11 trees sized at 15 gallons), 14 more trees than required, in addition to a variety of shrubs, grasses, and groundcover. Therefore, with implementation of the above standard permit condition, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
(Less than Significant)
The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan boundaries. According to the Habitat Agency Geobrowser and current aerial photographs, the project site parcels are mapped as Urban-Suburban (developed) land cover and are surrounded by developed parcels.

The site is not located in a land cover fee zone or any other special fee zone. No special-status plant or wildlife surveys are required, and the site is not in the Urban Reserve System Interface Zone.

The proposed project would be required to adhere to the Habitat Plan, as outlined in the standard permit condition below.

Standard Permit Condition
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The project is subject to applicable SCVHP conditions and fees (including the nitrogen deposition fee) prior to issuance of any grading permits. The project applicant would be required to submit the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Director's designee for approval and payment of the nitrogen deposition fee prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Habitat Plan and supporting materials can be viewed at www.scv-habitatplan.org.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 57 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 Cultural Resources Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,14,50
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,5,49
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,5

4.5.2 Environmental Setting
Structural Historic Resources
The City has identified approximately 160 City Landmarks in its Historic Resources Inventory; 25 of which are on the National Register, nine are considered a State of California Landmark, and four are State Points of Historical Interest.

The project site consists of two existing structures (the structure at 1212 South Winchester was built in 1948 and the structure at 1224 South Winchester was built in 1940). Neither of the two existing structures are listed on the City’s Historic Inventory of City Landmarks (City of San José 2019) and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer determined that a full historic report is not required for the project site. According to the City’s Public GIS Viewer, the nearest City Landmark to the project site is the Winchester Mystery House, which is approximately one mile north.

Historic and/or Unique Archaeological Resources
As identified in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan EIR, most prehistoric archaeological sites have been found along or very near fresh water sources such as creeks and springs, in valleys near both permanent and seasonal water sources including freshwater marshes once present throughout the valley, at the base of the hills, and along and adjacent to the major north/south Native American trails as well as at stone sources for tools in the foothills surrounding the valley. According to the General Plan EIR, the West Valley Planning Area, where the project site is located, is considered an archaeologically sensitive area (p. 698). However, the site is in an urbanized area and has been previously developed.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 58 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.5.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NRHP) is the nation’s most comprehensive list of historic resources and includes historic resources significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture, at the local, State, and national level.

National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be “associated with an important historic context” and second, the property must retain integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance. A resource is considered eligible for the National Register if the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:

1. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; or

2. Are associated with the lives of persons significant to our past; or

3. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

4. Yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

State
California Environmental Quality Act (§ 15064.5. Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological and Historical Resources)
a. For purposes of this section, the term “historical resources” shall include the following:

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.

Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 59 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
i. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ii. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
iv. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
b. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

1. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.

2. The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
i. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 60 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
ii. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or iii. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

3. Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.

4. A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

5. When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead agency shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of environmental documents. c. CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites.

1. When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subdivision (a).

2. If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.

3. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subdivision (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 61 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.

4. If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
d. When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:

1. The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).

2. The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
e. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
i. The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
ii. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 62 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
i. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. ii. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or iii. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. f. As part of the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code, a lead agency should make provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction. These provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place.

California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code (§ 7050.5) requires that in the event of discovery or recognition of human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
Chapter 3 of the General Plan sets forth sustainability goals for the City through 2040. The Environmental Resources section discusses archaeology- and paleontology-related Goals, Policies, and Actions. Chapter 6 of the General Plan discusses the land use policies that focus on historicallysignificant buildings and areas of San José. Chapter 7 provides environmental clearance goals and policies that relate to cultural resources. The following are applicable policies that relate to the proposed project:

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 63 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy CD-7.1: Support intensive development and uses within Urban Villages, while ensuring an appropriate interface with lower-intensity development in surrounding areas and the protection of appropriate historic resources.

Policy ER-10.1 For proposed development sites that have been identified as archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive, require investigation during the planning process in order to determine whether potentially significant archaeological or paleontological information may be affected by the project and then require, if needed, that appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into the project design.

Policy ER-10.2 Recognizing that Native American human remains may be encountered at unexpected locations, impose a requirement on all development permits and tentative subdivision maps that upon discovery during construction, development activity will cease until professional archaeological examination confirms whether the burial is human. If the remains are determined to be Native American, applicable state laws shall be enforced.

Policy ER-10.3 Ensure that City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes are enforced, including laws related to archaeological and paleontological resources, to ensure the adequate protection of historic and prehistoric resources.

Policy LU-13.9 Promote the preservation, conservation, rehabilitation, restoration, reuse, and/ or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual elements (e.g., structures, landscapes, street lamps, street trees, sidewalk design, signs) related to candidate and/or landmark buildings, structures, districts, or areas.

Policy IP-12.3 Use the Environmental Clearance process to identify potential impacts and to develop and incorporate environmentally beneficial actions, particularly those dealing with the avoidance of natural and human-made hazards and the preservation of natural, historical, archaeological and cultural resources.

City of San José Municipal Code – Historic Preservation Ordinance The City of San José has enacted an ordinance providing for the designation if historic resources as City Landmarks (Historic Preservation Ordinance, Municipal Code 13.48.110). Based upon the General Plan goals and policies, and the City of San José Historic Preservation Ordinance, the criteria for designation are similar to those for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources but oriented to the local context.

4.5.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to section 15064.5?
(Less Than Significant)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, historic resources can be both above- and belowground.

Aboveground historic resources. The project site is developed with two structures constructed in 1948 and 1940, respectively. According to the City’s Historic Resources Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 64 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Inventory, the project site does not contain historic resources defined under the Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 (City of San José 2019) and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer determined that a historic report is not required for the structures on the project site.

The property is not a known location of known important events and is not known or recorded to be associated with any persons important to national, state, or local history.

Belowground historic resources. There are no known historic resources present on the project site. However, the proposed project involves extensive excavation, which could result in the discovery of unknown belowground historic resources. With the implementation of the City’s Standard Permit Conditions presented in checklist question b), the construction and operation of the project would have less than significant impacts to belowground historic resources. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5?
Although the project site is located in the West Valley Planning Area, which is considered by the General Plan EIR to be an archaeologically sensitive area, the project site itself is within an urban environment and has been previously developed.

Regardless, construction activities could inadvertently expose previously undiscovered or unrecognizable archaeological deposits. Therefore, the City’s standard permit conditions listed below would be required. Implementation of the standard permit conditions, in accordance with General Plan Policies, would ensure the project would not have significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains.

Standard Permit Conditions
In the unlikely event that archaeological resources (including human remains) are encountered during excavation and construction, the project would implement the following Standard Permit Conditions:
a. Subsurface Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Director's designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist will examine the find. The archaeologist will 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and (2) make appropriate recommendations regarding the disposition of such finds prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery would be submitted to the Director of PBCE or the Director's designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel should not collect or move any cultural materials.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 65 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
b. Human Remains. If any human remains are found during any field investigations, grading, or other construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, shall be followed. If human remains are discovered during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The project applicant shall immediately notify the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Director's designee and the qualified archaeologist, who shall then notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. The Coroner will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the remains are believed to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD will inspect the remains and make a recommendation on the treatment of the remains and associated artifacts. If one of the following conditions occurs, the landowner or his authorized representative shall work with the Coroner to reinter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
i. The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site. ii. The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or iii. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant)
The proposed project would include grading and excavation for the subgrade parking structure, which could accidentally disturb unknown human remains onsite. As part of the development approval by the City, the proposed project would be required to conform to the following standard permit conditions, in accordance with General Plan policies, in order to ensure the project would not have significant impacts on Native American human remains.

Standard Permit Conditions
 If any human remains are found during any field investigations, grading, or other construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The project applicant shall immediately notify the Supervising Environmental Planner of the City of San José Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 66 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement and the qualified archaeologist, who will then notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. The Coroner will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American.  If the remains are believed to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD will inspect the remains and make a recommendation on the treatment of the remains and associated artifacts.
 If one of the following conditions occurs, the landowner or his authorized representative shall work with the Coroner to reinter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
o The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC; o The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or o The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 67 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.6 ENERGY

4.6.1 Energy Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1, 34,
35,36,
38, 39
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1, 38,
39 4.6.2 Environmental Setting
Pacific Gas and Electric, one of the five largest utilities in the state, is the primary purveyor of electricity and natural gas in the City of San José. San José Clean Energy, or SJCE, is San José’s new electricity supplier, providing residents and businesses with cleaner, affordable energy.

Operated by the City of San José’s Community Energy Department, it creates a more sustainable future for the community and future generations. SJCE plays a crucial role in Climate Smart San José, the City’s climate action plan. The San José City Council unanimously voted to create SJCE in May 2017, and was launched service in February 2019. Pacific Gas and Electric operates a major network of electricity and natural gas transmission lines within its service area, including San José.

For more than a decade, federal, state, and regional energy agencies and energy providers have been focused on reducing growth in fossil-fuel based energy demand, especially in the form of transportation fuels and electricity. Key environmental goals have been established to reduce air pollutants and GHGs. As a result, investments in a range of transportation technologies, alternative energy technologies, energy efficiency and energy conservation programs have been increasing, as has the focus on land use planning as a tool to reduce vehicle trips/lengths and transportation related energy use.

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting
Energy efficiency, energy conservation, and transportation fuel efficiency (through vehicle trip reduction and improved mileage) goals are embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. Representative state energy efficiency and conservation, and transportation energy demand guidance, regulations, and legislation are summarized below, as are those of the City of San José.

State
California Building Codes
The Green Building Standards Code (also known as CALGreen), which requires all new buildings in the state to be more energy efficient and environmentally responsible, was most recently updated Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 68 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
in July 2019. These comprehensive regulations are intended to achieve major reductions in interior and exterior building energy consumption.

Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley I Rule)
AB 1493 was enacted on July 22, 2002 and requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations that improve fuel efficiency of vehicles and light-duty trucks. Pavley I requirements apply to these vehicles in the model years 2009 to 2016.

Renewable Energy Legislation/Orders
The California Renewable Portfolio Standard Program, which requires electric utilities and other entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission to meet 20 percent of their retail sales with renewable power by 2017, was established by SB 1078 in 2002. The program was subsequently expanded by the renewable electricity standard in September 2010, requiring all utilities to meet a 33 percent target by 2020. On September 10, 2018, former Governor Brown signed into law SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18. SB 100 raises California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement to 50 percent by December 31, 2026, and to 60 percent by December 31, 2030. Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for California by 2045 and a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter.

Senate Bill 743
Effective July 1, 2020, SB 743 updates the way transportation impacts are measured in California for new development projects, making sure they are built in a way that allows Californians more options to drive less. SB 743 will help California achieve its climate commitments, preserve the environment, improve health and safety, and boost its economy by prioritizing co-located jobs, services, and housing. SB 743 will also reduce the time spent in vehicles to get to places, thereby reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following energy conservation and renewable energy use policies that are applicable to the proposed project:

Policy MS-1.6 Recognize the interconnected nature of green building systems, and, in the implementation of Green Building Policies, give priority to green building options that provide environmental benefit by reducing water and/or energy use and solid waste.

Policy MS-2.3 Utilize solar orientation (i.e., building placement), landscaping, design, and construction techniques for new construction to minimize energy consumption.

Policy MS-2.4 Promote energy efficient construction industry practices.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 69 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy MS-2.6 Promote roofing design and surface treatments that reduce the heat island effect of new and existing development and support reduced energy use, reduced air pollution, and a healthy urban forest. Connect businesses and residents with cool roof rebate programs through City outreach efforts.

Policy 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).

Policy MS-14.4 Implement the City’s Green Building Policies (see Green Building Section) so that new construction and rehabilitation of existing buildings fully implements industry best practices, including the use of optimized energy systems, selection of materials and resources, water efficiency, sustainable site selection, passive solar building design, and planting of trees and other landscape materials to reduce energy consumption.

Council Policy 6-32 Private Sector Green Building Policy Council Policy 6-32 Private Sector Green Building Policy, adopted in October 2008, establishes baseline green building standards for private sector new construction and provides a framework for implementing these standards. It promotes practices in building design, construction, and maintenance that reduce energy, water and other resource use. Private developments are required to implement green building practices if they meet the applicable project type and size criteria defined in Table 9, Private Sector Green Building Policy Applicable Projects. For mixed-use projects, only the component(s) of the project that meet the project size threshold shown in the table are required to comply with the green building standards (City of San José 2008).

4.6.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
(Less than Significant)
Energy impacts are assessed based on the proposed project energy demand profile and on its relationship to the state’s energy efficiency regulations and the City’s land use planning regulations. Both are summarized below.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 70 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Table 9 Private Sector Green Building Policy Applicable Projects Applicable Project Minimum Green
Building Rating
Minimum Green Building Rating1,2,3
Commercial/Industrial – Tier 1 (Less than 25,000 square feet) LEED Applicable New Construction Checklist Commercial/Industrial – Tier 2 (25,000 square feet or greater) LEED Silver Residential – Tier 1 (Less than 10 units) GreenPoint or LEED Checklist Residential – Tier 2 (10 units or greater) GreenPoint Rated 50 points or LEED Certified High Rise Residential (75 feet or higher) LEED Certified SOURCES: City of San José 2008
NOTES:

1. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings. The LEED system offers levels of certification for new construction referred to as Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum.

2. REACH CODE. In September 2019, San José City Council approved a building reach code ordinance that encourages building electrification and energy efficiency, requires solar-readiness on nonresidential buildings, and requires electric vehicle (EV)-readiness and EV equipment installation. In October 2019, Council approved an ordinance prohibiting natural gas infrastructure in new detached accessory dwelling units, single-family, and low-rise multi-family buildings that would supplement the reach code ordinance. Both of these ordinances have been required to be applied to new construction as of January 1, 2020

3. Administered by Build It Green, GreenPoint Rated is a green building rating system which can be used to assess the environmental characteristics of a home. GreenPoint Rated assigns point values to recommended practices based on their benefits to the homeowner and the environment. If a home meets minimum point requirements in each category and scores more than 50 total points, it earns the right to bear the GreenPoint Rated label.

Existing Energy Demand
The existing single-family residence, event decorator office, and commercial office building on the project site consume energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and vehicles used by the residents, employees, and others consume transportation fuel. A summary of existing energy demand is provided below.

Electricity. Section 5.3, Energy by Land Use – Electricity, in the CalEEMod results included in Appendix B shows existing electricity demand of about 159,343 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year.

Natural Gas. Section 5.2, Energy by Land Use – Natural Gas, in the CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that the natural gas demand from existing uses would be about 167,932,000 British Thermal Unit (BTU) per year or 1,679 therms per year (1 therm = 100,000 BTU).

Transportation Fuel. Existing uses generate traffic trips. Vehicle trips can be translated into vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the purpose of projecting transportation fuel demand.

CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that the estimated existing annual VMT would be 191,701 miles. The 2017 Emissions Factor Model (EMFAC) version 1.0.2, which uses VMT as an input, was used to estimate existing transportation fuel use. The EMFAC Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 71 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
results included as Appendix D show existing transportation fuel demand of about 8,045 gallons per year.

Projected Energy Demand
The proposed project would result in increased demand for electricity, natural gas and fuel. A summary of projected energy demand is provided below.

Electricity. According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System (2020a), in 2018, total electricity consumption in Santa Clara County was 16,708,080,341 kWh. Section 5.3, Energy by Land Use – Electricity, in the CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show projected electricity demand would be approximately 702,441 kWh per year. Projected electricity demand would be less than 0.01 percent of the total 2018 Santa Clara County electricity demand. The projected electricity demand exceeds that of the existing uses by 543,098 kWh per year, or 340.84 percent.

Natural Gas. According to the California Energy Commission Energy Consumption Data Management System (2020b), in 2018, total natural gas consumption in Santa Clara County was 440,030,822 therms. Section 5.2, Energy by Land Use – Natural Gas, in the CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that projected natural gas demand would be about 2,807,810,000 BTU per year or 28,078 therms per year. Projected natural gas demand would be less than 0.01 percent of the total 2018 Santa Clara County natural gas demand. The projected natural gas demand exceeds that of the existing uses by 2,639,878,000 BTU per year or 26,399 therms per year, or 1,572.30 percent.

Transportation Fuel. The proposed project would generate new traffic trips that would increase VMT. New vehicle trips would result in increased demand for and consumption of transportation fuel. CalEEMod results included in Appendix B show that the projected annual VMT would be 2,765,102 miles. EMFAC was used to forecast annual transportation fuel use based on the projected VMT. The EMFAC results in Appendix D show projected transportation fuel demand of about 106,282 gallons per year. The projected transportation fuel demand exceeds that of the existing uses by 98,237 gallons per year, or 1,221.09 percent.

During construction, diesel and gasoline use in construction equipment, construction material transport vehicles, portable power generation systems, and worker vehicles would be the primary source of energy use. Construction energy demand would be higher for the proposed project than for typical development on vacant land because the existing facility must first be demolished.

The Environmental Protection Agency regulates diesel engine design and fuel composition at the federal level, and has adopted multiple tiers of emission standards that result in reduced fuel consumption. Generally, California policy and regulations are as or more comprehensive and stringent than federal actions. At the state-level, the California Air Resources Board enforces off-road diesel engine vehicle and equipment regulations. Representative legislation and standards for improving transportation fuel efficiency of off-road vehicles includes, but is not limited to the Truck and Bus Regulation, Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 72 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Fleets, and Portable Equipment Registration Program. The California Air Resources Board also regulates on-road vehicles including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles that would be used by construction workers. Representative legislation and standards for improving transportation fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles includes, but is not limited to the Pavley standards and the Advanced Clean Cars program.

Conclusion
A proposed project could be considered to result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy if its energy demand is extraordinary relative to common land use types, its gross energy demand is excessive relative to total demand in Santa Clara County and/or it fails to comply with California energy efficiency/conservation regulations that are within the applicant’s control.

The proposed project represents a single-use development in an urban environment with a diversity of complementary land uses and frequent transit services that would result in low VMT, and therefore, low transportation fuel demand.

The project is a common land use type whose electricity and natural gas demand would not be excessive. As presented above, projected electricity and natural gas demand would not be excessive relative to cumulative electricity and natural gas demand in Santa Clara County.

Further, the City enforces the California Building Standards Code through the development review process. That enforcement is the primary mechanism through which the applicant would be required to implement energy efficiency/conservation measures. The proposed 107,079.9-square feet hotel meets the project size threshold shown in Table 9 and is required to be LEED Silver. Required conformance with the Council Policy 6-32 green building requirements would also result in energy reduction benefits.

The proposed project would consume energy, but it would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
(No Impact)
As discussed in Regulatory Setting above, there are no regulations at the state or local level that would mandate that the proposed project must include on-site renewable energy sources.

At the local level, the project is required to be LEED Silver pursuant to Council Policy 6-32.

By including green building design measures to achieve LEED Silver certification, the project would comply with existing State and local energy standards and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for energy efficiency.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 73 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.7 GEOLOGY/SOILS

4.7.1 Geology/Soils Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,9

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,4,9

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,4,9

4. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,9
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,9
d) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,9
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,11
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3

4.7.2 Environmental Setting
Much of the information within this section of the initial study is from the City’s Envision San José 2040 General Plan EIR and the letter to Mr. Henry Cord (the applicant) from Cornerstone Earth Group on October 2, 2019 addressing the results of a geotechnical feasibility study. The letter can be found in Appendix E.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 74 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most seismically active areas in Santa Clara County. The major earthquake faults in the region are the San Andreas, located near the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Hayward and Calaveras fault system, located in the Diablo Mountain Range. Other potentially active faults within San José include the Berryessa, Crosley, Clayton, Quimby, Shannon, Evergreen, and Silver Creek faults. The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019).

Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Seismic activity can also result in hazards from several forms of ground failure, such as liquefaction and lateral spreading. The majority of San José is located within the Santa Clara Valley, which is a broad alluvial plain with alluvial soils extending several hundred feet below the ground surface.

During strong seismic shaking, loose, saturated sand and silt layers can soften, resulting in substantial ground deformation. Factors that influence liquefaction potential include geologic age of a soil deposit, soil type, soil cohesion, and ground water level. Along active stream channels, liquefaction susceptibility is typically high.

Lateral spreading is a type of ground failure that can occur where an open slope face is present. It typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying material toward an open face such as an excavation (either temporary or permanent), channel, or body of water. This movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane in soils and may be associated with liquefaction. Areas of San José that are most prone to lateral spreading include lands are adjacent to the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek, where liquefaction probability is greatest and in the marshland deposits of northernmost parts of San José.

The project site is not located along stream channels. The nearest being the Los Gatos Creek located approximately one mile southeast of the site and the San Tomas Aquino Creek, located approximately 0.80 miles west of the project site. The project site is not identified as being within a liquefaction hazard zone according to Figure 3.6-1 of the General Plan EIR.

Landslides
Landslides occur when the stability of a slope changes from a stable to an unstable condition. Most landslide activity has occurred in the Diablo Range on the east side of San José with lesser amounts in the Santa Teresa Hills and Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. In hillside areas and along creeks, earthquakes can trigger landslides. Hazard areas extend into developable areas of the City at the edge of the East Foothills, in the Silver Creek Hills, the northern tip of the Santa Teresa Hills, and locations at the edge of the Almaden Valley. Figure 3.6-1 of the General Plan EIR illustrated areas considered susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides. The project site is flat and not located in a landslide hazard area.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 75 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Expansive and Weak Soils
Expansive soils have a high shrink-swell potential and occur where a sufficient percentage of certain clay materials are present in the soil. These soil conditions can impact the structural integrity of buildings and other structures. Much of the soil in San José is moderately to highly expansive.

Moderately to highly expansive soils are found both on the valley floor and in hillside areas.

Expansive soils on sloping hillsides are subject to soil creep, which can induce lateral forces on foundations and retaining walls. The project site’s soils are moderately to highly expansive (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019, p. 4).

Erosion
Erosion typically occurs when bare soils are exposed to water or wind. Erosion can occur as a result of rainfall in areas where construction activities have exposed soils and bedrock. In San José, erosion occurs primarily from the concentration of water generated on hillsides where erosion potential is high to very high. In addition to erosion of hillsides, erosion occurs in stream and creek beds and banks during high flow periods.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontologic resources include fossils – the remains or traces of once-living organisms preserved in sediments or sedimentary rocks – and the geologic context in which they occur. Paleontologic sensitivity is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils.

This is determined by rock type, past history of the rock unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities that are recorded from that unit. Paleontologic sensitivity is derived from the fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey. Potentially sensitive areas for the presence of paleontological resources within San José are identified on Figure 3.11-1 in the General Plan EIR, based on the underlying geologic formation. Areas with the highest sensitivity are those where geologic formations known to contain fossils are found close to the ground surface. According to Figure 3.11-1, the project site is located within an area of high sensitivity below ground level.

4.7.3 Regulatory Setting
State
Alquist-Priolo Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted in 1972 in the aftermath of the San Fernando earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. Single family homes that are not part of a development project of four or more units are exempt. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act the State Geologist establishes earthquake fault regulatory zones and issues maps identifying those zones. Alquist-Priolo Zones are mapped on the eastern portions of San José boundaries, east of U.S. Highway 101.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 76 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the state designates seismic hazard zones to protect from the effects of strong ground shaking, earthquake- induced landslides, liquefaction, or other ground failures associated with seismic activity.

California Building Code
Every three years the California Building Standards Commission adopts an updated version of the building codes. The building codes are based on national model codes, amended by the State as the California Building Code, and often further amended by local jurisdictions. The 2019 California Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24), the current version of the code, was published on July 1, 2019, with an effective date of January 1, 2020.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes updated hazards policies that address geologic and seismic hazards. The following policies are specific to geologic resources and apply to the proposed project:

Policy EC-3.1 All new or remodeled habitable structures shall be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code and California Fire Code as amended locally and adopted by the City of San José, including provisions regarding lateral forces.

Policy EC-4.1 All new or remodeled habitable structures shall be designed and built in accordance with the most recent California Building Code and municipal code requirements as amended and adopted by the City of San José, including provisions for expansive soil, and grading and storm water controls.

Policy EC-4.2 Development in areas subject to soils and geologic hazards, including un-engineered fill and weak soils and landslide-prone areas, only when the severity of hazards have been evaluated and if shown to be required, appropriate mitigation measures are provided. New development proposed within areas of geologic hazards shall not be endangered by, nor contribute to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on adjoining properties. The City of San José Geologist will review and approve geotechnical and geological investigation reports for projects within these areas as part of the project approval process.

Policy EC-4.4 All new development shall conform to the City of San José’s Geologic Hazard Ordinance.

Policy EC-4.5 Ensure that any development activity that requires grading does not impact adjacent properties, local creeks and storm drainage systems by designing and building the site to drain properly and minimize erosion. An Erosion Control Plan is required for all private development projects that have a soil disturbance of one acre or more, are adjacent to a creek/river, and/or are located in hillside areas. Erosion Control Plans are also required for any grading occurring between October 15 and April 15.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 77 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Action EC-4.11 Require the preparation of geotechnical and geological investigation reports for projects within areas subject to soils and geologic hazards, and require review and implementation of mitigation measures as part of the project approval process.

Action EC-4.12 Require review and approval of grading plans and erosion control plans (if applicable) prior to issuance of grading permits by the Director of Public Works
Policy ES-4.9 Permit development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of persons in that area can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

City of San José Municipal Code – Title 24
Title 24 of the City’s Municipal Code includes the current California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical, Existing Building, and Historical Building Codes. Requirements for building safety and earthquake hazard reduction are also addressed in Chapter 17.40 (Dangerous Buildings) and Chapter 17.10 (Geologic Hazards Regulations) of the Municipal Code.

Requirements for grading, excavation, and erosion control are included in Chapter 17.10 (Building Code, Part 6 Excavation and Grading). In accordance with the Municipal Code, the Director of Public Works must issue a Certificate of Geologic Hazard Clearance prior to the issuance of grading and building permits within defined geologic hazard zones, including State Seismic Hazard Zones for Liquefaction.

4.7.4 Impact Discussion
a.1) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? a.2) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
a.4) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 78 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Unless otherwise stated, this section is based on the Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group in October 2019. (Less Than Significant)
Fault Rupture. The project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and, therefore, fault rupture through the project site is not anticipated (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019, p. 2). Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault.

Seismic Ground Shaking. The project site is in a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking would be expected during the life of the proposed project (City of San Jose 2011, p. 503). The geotechnical feasibility study recommends that the proposed project be designed to meet current California Building Code standards in order to reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects related to ground shaking (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019).

Seismic-Related Liquefaction. The project site is not mapped within a California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction and due to the deep groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction impacting site development is considered low (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019, p. 3). However, the geotechnical feasibility study recommends that the potential or liquefaction is evaluated during the design-level geotechnical investigation to confirm anticipated groundwater depth and subsurface layers once the project plans are finalized. With compliance to the standard permit conditions identified below, the potential significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Landslides. The proposed project is not located within a California Seismic Hazard Zone for landslides and due to the flat topography of the project site, the potential for landslides at the project site may be considered low (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019, p. 3).

Given that the project site is located within a seismically active region, the following Standard Permit Condition, in accordance with the Building and Fire Code, is required to be implemented to reduce seismic-related impacts.

Standard Permit Condition
To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the project shall be constructed using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. Building design and construction at the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of an approved geotechnical investigation. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San José Department of Public Works as part of the building permit review and issuance process. The buildings shall meet the requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes as adopted or updated by the City. The project shall be designed to withstand soil hazards Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 79 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
identified on the site and the project shall be designed to reduce the risk to life or property on site and off site to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Building Code. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant)
The 0.69-acre project site is currently developed and the project site includes impervious surfaces. Ground disturbance would be required for the demolition of the existing buildings and hardscape, grading, and construction of the proposed development. Ground disturbance could expose soils and increase the potential for wind- or water-related erosion and sedimentation at the project site until construction is complete.

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant would be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Department of Public Works. The Erosion Control Plan may include BMPs as specified in Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Standards Erosion & Sediment Control Measures for reducing impacts on soil erosion from construction activities.

In addition, the following standard permit conditions would be required in order to reduce erosion impacts during construction to a less than significant level.

Standard Permit Conditions
 The project applicant shall comply with the City of San José Grading Ordinance (Chapter

17.04, Part 6), including erosion and dust control during site preparation and with the City of San José Zoning Ordinance requirements for keeping adjacent streets free of dirt and mud during construction. The following specific BMPs would be implemented to prevent storm water pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during construction:
o Grading would not be allowed between October 1st and April 30th of any year without Erosion Control plans and measures approved by the Director of Public Works.
o Utilize on-site sediment control BMPs to retain sediment on the project site. o Utilize stabilized construction entrances and/or wash racks. o Implement damp street sweeping.
o Provide temporary cover of disturbed surfaces to help control erosion during construction.
o Provide permanent cover to stabilize the disturbed surfaces after construction has been completed.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 80 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 The following erosion control measures would also be required:
o Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sediment and other debris away from the drains.
o Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high winds.
o All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary.
o Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall be watered or covered.
o All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be required to cover all trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
o All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). o Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible. o All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to knock mud from truck tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system may also be employed at the request of the City.

Erosion impacts could also occur post-construction as well. Therefore, the project is required to comply with the specific Site Design, Pollutant Source Control, and Stormwater Treatment Control Measures demonstrating compliance with Provision C.3 of the MRP (NPDES Permit Number CAS612008) and would be included in the project design to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement or the Director’s designee and the Director of Public Works.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (Less Than Significant)
There are no open faces within an appropriate distance of the project site where lateral spreading could occur; therefore, the potential for lateral spreading to affect the project site is low (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019, p. 3).

This issue is addressed above in the response to checklist question a) and would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of standard permit conditions.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 81 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
(Less Than Significant)
According to the geotechnical feasibility study, the project site’s soils are moderately to highly expansive (Cornerstone Earth Group 2019), which could create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property as a result of development of the proposed project. This issue is addressed above in the response for checklist question a) and would be reduced to a less than significant level with standard permit conditions.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
(No Impact)
All sewage generated within the San José Water’s service area, which includes the project site, is sent to the San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility via the City and West Valley Sanitation District collection systems (San José Water Company 2016, p. 6-3). The proposed project would connect to the existing six-inch sanitary sewer line located in South Winchester Boulevard. There would be no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
(Less Than Significant)
The project site is currently developed and, therefore, there are no unique geologic features within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact on a unique geological feature.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR’s Figure 3.11-1, the project site is not in an area of high surface paleontological sensitivity; however, it is identified as being within an area of high sensitivity below ground level. The project site, if disturbed, is not known to contain any unique paleontological resources and the project is not expected to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; however, it is possible that unique paleontological resources may be encountered during construction activities. In accordance with General Plan Policy ER-10.3, the following standard permit condition would be implemented by the project to reduce and avoid potential impacts to as yet unidentified buried unique paleontological resources:

Standard Permit Condition
Paleontological Resources. If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site shall stop immediately, Director of Planning or Director’s designee of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) shall be notified, and a Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 82 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Director of Planning or Director’s designee of the PBCE.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 83 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.8.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1, 43
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1, 43

4.8.2 Environmental Setting
Causes and Effects of Climate Change
The greenhouse effect naturally regulates the Earth’s temperature. However, human activity has increased the intensity of the greenhouse effect by releasing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere. GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for decades or even hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the particular GHG). The GHG emissions that are already in the atmosphere will continue to cause climate change for years to come, just as the warming being experienced now is the result of emissions produced in the past.

Increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere result in increased air, surface, and ocean temperatures. Many of the effects and impacts of climate change stem from resulting changes in temperature and meteorological responses to those changes. Effects of climate change include, but are not limited to: reduced snowpack, more frequent and extreme storm events, sea level rise, reduced water supply availability, diminished air quality, increased wildfire hazards, increased public health concerns, and ecosystem changes.

Greenhouse Gas Types
GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. The human-produced GHGs most responsible for global warming are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. In 2018, GHG emissions in the United States consisted of 81 percent of carbon dioxide, 10 percent of methane, 7 percent of nitrous oxide, and 3 percent of chlorofluorocarbons (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2020). While carbon dioxide represents the vast majority of the total volume of GHGs released into the atmosphere, the release of even small quantities of other types of GHGs can be significant for their contribution to climate change.

4.8.3 Regulatory Setting
The federal government has taken significant regulatory steps toward addressing climate change.

Generally, California policy and regulations implemented at the regional and local levels are as or Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 84 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
more comprehensive and stringent than federal actions; therefore, this section focuses on state, regional, and local regulatory actions whose implementation would lessen the contribution of the proposed project to climate change.

State
Assembly Bill 32
In September 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

Senate Bill 32
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 32 requires California to reduce its statewide GHG emissions by the year 2030 so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.

California Renewables Portfolio Standard
In 2015, the Legislature enacted SB 350, which embodies a policy encouraging a substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles and increased the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity generated to be from renewables by 2030.

On September 10, 2018, former Governor Brown signed into law SB 100 and Executive Order B55-18. SB 100 raises California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement to 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter.

Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley Clean Cars Standards
In July 2002, the Legislature enacted AB 1493 (Pavley Bill), which requires the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks beginning with model year 2009. In September 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley standards to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles through the 2016 model year. These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley II standards.”
Advanced Clean Cars
In January 2012, CARB adopted an Advanced Clean Cars program aimed at reducing both smogcausing pollutants and GHG emissions for vehicles model years 2017-2025. The regulations focus on substantially increasing the number of plug-in hybrid cars and zero-emission vehicles in the vehicle fleet and on making fuels such as electricity and hydrogen readily available for these vehicle Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 85 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
technologies. It is expected that the Advanced Clean Car regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 34 percent below 2016 levels by 2025, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.

Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities Strategy
SB 375, signed in August 2008, requires sustainable community strategies to be included in regional transportation plans to reduce emissions of GHGs. In 2013, the San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments jointly approved Plan Bay Area, which includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Plan Bay Area includes a target of reducing GHGs to seven percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, and 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2035.

California Energy Code
The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the California Building Standards Code, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The California Energy Code is updated every three years by the California Energy Commission to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and construction methods.

California Green Building Standards Code
The purpose of the California Green Building Standards, which became effective on January 1, 2011, is to improve building design and construction to reduce negative environmental impacts through sustainable construction practices. The 2019 California Green Building Standards instituted mandatory and voluntary environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial, low-rise residential uses, and state-owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals.

Regional
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The 2017 CEQA Guidelines include guidance on evaluating, determining significance of, and mitigating GHG impacts of projects and plans. The 2017 CEQA Guidelines include thresholds of significance that are based on AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals for the year 2020. The proposed project is expected to be operational by 2023. Therefore, BAAQMD’s thresholds do not address GHG emissions reductions needed after 2020 to keep statewide emissions on a path toward meeting the 2030 SB 32 emissions reduction target.

The 2017 CAP defines a vision for achieving ambitious GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve those GHG reduction targets. There are 85 control measures designed to decrease emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. The control measures that address GHG emissions include TR1: Clean Air Teleworking Initiative; TR 2: Trip Reduction Programs; TR19: Medium and Heavy-Duty Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 86 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Trucks; TR 22: Construction, Freight, and Farming Equipment; BL1: Green Buildings; BL2:

Decarbonize Buildings; BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation; and SL1: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following policies related to GHG emissions that are applicable to the proposed project:

Policy MS-1.2 Continually increase the number and proportion of building within San José that make use of green building practices by incorporating those practices into both new construction and retrofit of existing structures.

Policy MS-2.3 Encourage consideration of solar orientation, including building placement, landscaping, design, and construction techniques for new construction to minimize energy consumption.

Policy 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).

Policy MS-5.5 Maximize recycling and composting from all residents, businesses, and institutions in the City.

Policy MS-6.8 Maximize reuse, recycling, and composting citywide.

Policy MS-14.4 Implement the City’s Green Building Policies so that new construction and rehabilitation of existing buildings fully implements industry best practices, including the use of optimized energy systems, selection of materials and resources, water efficiency, sustainable site selection, passive solar building design, and planting of trees and other landscape materials to reduce energy consumption.

Policy LU-5.4 Require new commercial development to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access through techniques such as minimizing building separation from public sidewalks; providing safe, accessible, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian connections; and including secure and convenient bike storage.

Policy TR-2.18 Provide bicycle storage facilities as identified in the Bicycle Master Plan.

Policy CD-2.5 Integrate Green Building Goals and Policies of this Plan into site design to create healthful environments. Consider factors such as shaded parking Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 87 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
areas, pedestrian connections, minimization of impervious surfaces, incorporation of stormwater treatment measures, appropriate building orientations, etc.

Policy CD-3.3 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.

Policy CD-5.1 Design areas to promote pedestrian and bicycle movements and to facilitate interaction between community members and to strengthen the sense of community.

City of San José Municipal Code
The City of San José Municipal Code includes the following regulations that would reduce GHG emissions from future development:
 Green Building Ordinance (Chapter 17.84);
 Water Efficient Landscape Standards for New and Rehabilitated Landscaping (Chapter

15.10);
 Transportation Demand Programs for employers with more than 100 employees (Chapter 11.105);
 Construction and Demolition Diversion Deposit Program (Chapter 9.10); and  Wood Burning Ordinance (Chapter 9.10).

GHG Reduction Strategy
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 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. The City has prepared a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist that, when completed, documents a project’s consistency with the GHGRS. The purpose of the checklist is to:
 Implement GHG reduction strategies from the 2030 GHGRS to new development projects; and
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 88 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 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).

Council Policy 6-32 Private Sector Green Building Policy In October 2008, the City adopted Private Sector Green Building Policy 6-32, which identifies baseline green building standards for new private construction and provides a framework for implementing these standards. This policy requires that qualifying projects achieve minimum green building performance levels using the Council adopted standards (see Table 9 in Section 4.6, Energy).

4.8.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
(Less than Significant)
The 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Compliance Checklist was completed for the project and is included as Appendix J, in order to demonstrate conformance with the GHGRS.

The proposed project conforms with the GHGRS for the following reasons:

1. The project is consistent with the Land Use/Transportation Diagram as Neighborhood/Community Commercial;

2. The project is required to comply with the applicable standards in the Green Building Ordinance, consistent with Policy MS-2.11;

3. The project's transportation analysis report, inclusive of a TDM program, includes measures to support General Plan Element Circulation goals and policies including planting street trees, consistent with Policy CD-2.1, as well as measures to reduce the vehicle trips generated by the project, consistent with Policy TR-7.1;

4. The project includes shaded parking areas, street trees in the pedestrian environment, and a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan with site design and treatment control measures consistent with the Municipal Regional Stormwater (MRP) NPDES Permit, consistent with Policy CD-2.5;

5. The project is within the Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan and is consistent with the minimum density requirements of the pertaining Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation of Neighborhood/Community Commercial; and
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 89 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

6. The project will utilize one subgrade parking level (shaded), consistent with Policy CD2.11.

The project conforms to the 2030 GHGRS and therefore, the project’s greenhouse gas emissions impacts are less than significant.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 90 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.9.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Checklist Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 1, 37
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 1,5,
16,37
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a
result, create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,
37,54,
55 e) For a project located within an airport land-use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or a publicuse airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,3,5,16
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,3,62

4.9.2 Environmental Setting
The primary source for the information within this section is from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (environmental site assessment) prepared in October 2019 by Essel Environmental Engineering and Consulting. The full environmental site assessment can be found in Appendix F.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 91 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Historic and Current Uses of the Site and Surrounding Areas The project site is currently developed with two buildings and includes associated parking areas and sheds. The environmental site assessment discovered that the project site was occupied by an orchard in 1939 and in 1948 it was developed with the two buildings that are present today. The project site and surrounding area was generally encompassed by the orchard until 1948 when structures and some residential uses to the north were introduced into the area. In 1956, an increase in residential development can be seen, including the addition of Fireside Drive. The previous orchard uses are still shown as present in the area east of the project site, based on the historical aerial photographs, until 1956 when the residential developments replaced the orchard land. In 1963, the area south of the project site appears to have become occupied with a structure that resembled a gasoline service station. The present-day square-shaped building south adjacent to the project site was first seen in 1974 and the other rectangular office building in 1982 (Essel Environmental Engineering and Consulting 2019, p. 14). The structures to the west of the project site, across South Winchester Boulevard, began appearing as early as 1974; the present-day office buildings to the west and church buildings to the northwest were found in photos dating back to 1982.

On-site Contamination
According to the environmental site assessment, several petroleum products and hazardous materials and wastes were found onsite. There was also minor evidence of staining was observed in the parking area of 1224 South Winchester Boulevard but was determined unlikely that the subsurface had been impacted beneath the project site (p. 28).

Airports
The closest airport, the Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, is located approximately three miles northeast of the project site. The site is not located within the airport influence area nor the safety zones designated by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, proposed structures on the project site higher than approximately 90 feet above ground would require filing with the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA) for airspace safety review. However, the proposed project includes a height of 64 feet and 7 inches and, therefore, this would not be required by the applicant.

4.9.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to serve as a singlesource collection of all federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to make sure there is appropriate protection of the environment. The EPA’s duty is to create and enforce regulations that protect the natural environment and apply the laws passed by Congress. The EPA is also accountable for establishing national criteria for various environmental programs and enforcing compliance.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 92 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enacted in 1976 governs the disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act gives the EPA the power to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances that cannot be disposed of in ordinary landfills. It also allows for each state to apply their own hazardous waste programs instead of implementing the federal program on the condition that the state’s program is just as strict in its requirements. This state program must be permitted by the EPA in order to be used.

Occupational Safety Health Administration
The Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) provides safe and healthy working environments for employers and employees in the form of an enforced list of standards as well as training, outreach, education, and assistance from the public. This list of enforced standards are listed in 29 CFR Chapter 29, Sections 1910 (General Industry) and 1926 (Construction). These standards call out the preparation of Health and Safety Plans that determine possible hazards connected to a proposed land use and may offer applicable implementation of mitigation measures.

Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace” (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways. However, as indicated previously, the proposed project would not require submitting a notice to the Federal Aviation Administration as the project would not include heights over 90 feet.

State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was established in 1991 and is comprised of: the California Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalRecycle, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. This integrated group amalgamates all of California’s environmental authority agencies into one and has led the state of California in developing and applying numerous progressive environmental policies in America. The primary goal of the Cal/EPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 93 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Cortese List
The Cortese list was authorized by the state legislature in 1985. A list of several types of hazardous materials is gathered by a few agencies as directed by the statute.

Government Code Section 65962.5. (a) The Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

2. All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.

3. All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land.

4. All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.

All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program. Government Code Section 65962.5. (c) The State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code.

2. All solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 13273 of the Water Code.

3. All cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials.

The proposed project site is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2019).

California Department of Toxic Control
The California Department of Toxic Control, a department of the Cal/EPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. The California Department of Toxic Control regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the Federal Resource Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 94 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Conservation and Recovery Act and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services was officially established in 1970. In 2013, it merged with the Office of Public Safety Communications where it is now operating as an agency that addresses the risks and threats to the public, property, economy, and environment. A broader mission of this office is to run multiple programs that assist the state’s stakeholders and protect communities. One of the main responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Services is to regulate the statewide standards of hazardous materials. The office requires general information of how the hazardous materials are going to be handled, used, stored, or disposed of for the accessibility of public safety officers and regulatory agencies. The regulations are discussed in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Hazardous Materials Release Response and Inventory Program and Article 2, Hazardous Materials Management.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the main agency in control of the safety of workers regarding the handling and use of hazardous pollutants in the workplace. Generally, the State’s regulations are much stricter than the federal regulations. A comparison of Cal/OSHA and Federal OSHA programs is provided within a fact sheet provided by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

California Environmental Protection Agency Unified Program The Cal/EPA Unified Program protects the residents of California from hazardous waste and materials through conditions, permits, inspections, and implementations. The Unified Program consists of 81 certified local government agencies, acknowledged as the Certified United Program Agencies, which implement governing criteria generated by five different state agencies.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations
The State of California has adopted the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for the transporting of hazardous materials within the boundary of the State. All hazardous waste transporters in the State are required to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control and shall meet all regulations put forth by: the California Highway Patrol, the California State Fire Marshal, and the United States Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the hazardous waste transporters are required to meet the regulations set forth in the California Code of Regulations (Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 6 and 13).

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
A California Accidental Release Prevention Program is a program that the owner or operator of a stationary source develops, which provides information such as regulated pollutants held on the site, Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 95 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
what the magnitude is if there is an accidental release of the regulated pollutant, what the emergency response program is for the stationary source, and a hazard analysis. Additional information is required and can be found in the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Article 2, Sections 25531 to 25543.3. The idea behind this program is to offer data that could be helpful to first responders as they actively stop the release of a hazardous substance in the area that would threaten the lives of the public or the surrounding environment.

Local
Emergency Operations and Evacuation Plans
The City of San José’s Emergency Operations Plan includes standard operating procedures for flood events, heat waves, off-airport aviation accidents, power outages, terrorism, and urban/wildland interface fires. The Citywide Emergency Evacuation Plan sets forth the responsibilities of City personnel and coordination with other agencies to ensure the safety of San José citizens in the event of a fire, geologic, or other hazardous occurrence.

Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies which seek to mitigate potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials in the City. Applicable goals and policies include:

Policy EC-6.6 Environmental review for all proposals for new residential, park and recreation, school, day care, hospital, church or other uses that would place a sensitive population in close proximity to sites on which hazardous materials are or are likely to be located must address the likelihood of an accidental release, the risks posed to human health and for sensitive populations, and mitigation measures, if needed, to protect human health.

Policy EC-7.1 For development and redevelopment projects, require evaluation of the proposed site’s historical and present uses to determine if any potential environmental conditions exist that could adversely impact the community or environment.

Policy EC-7.2 Identification of existing soil, soil vapor, groundwater and indoor air contamination and mitigation for identified human health and environmental hazards to future users shall be provided as part of the environmental review process for all development and redevelopment projects. Mitigation measures for soil, soil vapor and groundwater contamination shall be designed to avoid adverse human health or environmental risk, in conformance with regional, state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines and standards.

Policy EC-7.4 On redevelopment sites, the presence of hazardous building materials shall be determined during the environmental review process or prior to project approval. Mitigation and remediation of hazardous building materials, such as leadpaint and asbestos-containing materials, shall be implemented in accordance with state and federal laws and regulations.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 96 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy EC-7.5 On development and redevelopment sites, all sources of imported fill shall have adequate documentation that it is clean and free of contamination and/or acceptable for the proposed land use considering appropriate environmental screening levels for contaminants. Disposal of groundwater from excavations on construction sites shall comply with local, regional, and state requirements.

Policy EC-7.11 Require sampling for residual agricultural chemicals, based on the history of land use, on sites to be used for any new development or redevelopment to account for worker and community safety during construction. Mitigation to meet appropriate end use such as residential or commercial/industrial shall be provided.

Policy CD-5.8 Comply with applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations identifying maximum heights for obstructions to promote air safety.

4.9.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less than Significant)
The proposed project is the development of a hotel structure, which would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or waste. The proposed development may use small quantities of miscellaneous household cleaning supplies and other chemicals but not to the amount that significant hazards to the public or environment would occur. In addition, construction of the project site would result in the transport of materials on and offsite, but is not expected to contain any hazardous materials. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Environmental Site Assessment, prepared for the site, determined the following (p. 32):
 No recognized environmental condition is identified in connection with the Site;  No controlled recognized environmental condition is associated with the Site;  No historical recognized environmental condition is present in connection with the Site; and
 No de minimis environmental condition is present in connection with the Site.

The environmental site assessment found no evidence of a recognized environmental condition on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 97 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

However, aerial photographs from the environmental site assessment indicate that the subject property had an agricultural history from at least the 1930’s to the early 1940’s. Since the early 1800’s arsenic containing insecticides and organochlorine pesticides were applied to crops in the normal course of farming operations. Lead arsenate was extensively used up until the 1960’s and organochlorine pesticides were used between the 1940’s and 1980’s. It is not uncommon to find residual agricultural chemicals in the soil of properties with an agricultural history in San José. In accordance with Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan Policy EC-7.11, the following mitigation measure is required to reduce significant impacts related to significant hazards to the public or environment created as a result of construction of the project site.

IMPACT HAZ-1: The project site was historically used for agricultural purposes and there is potential for residual agricultural chemicals to be found in the soil.

Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, shallow soil samples will be taken in the near surface soil in the proposed project area and tested for organochlorine pesticides and pesticidebased metals arsenic and lead to determine if contaminants from previous agricultural operations occur at concentrations above established construction worker safety and commercial/industrial standard environmental screening levels. The result of soil sampling and testing will be provided to the City’s Supervising Planner and Municipal Environmental Compliance Officer for review.

The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety and the health of future workers and visitors. The Plan and evidence of regulatory oversight shall be provided to the Supervising Environmental Planner of the City of San José Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, and the Environmental Compliance Officer in the City of San José’s Environmental Services Department.

Based on the date of construction of the existing buildings on the project site (one constructed in 1948 and the other constructed in 1940), asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint may be present in building materials. Demolition and construction of the proposed project could result in the release of the hazardous materials into the environment; the following standard permit conditions would reduce impacts due to the presence of ACMs or lead-based paints.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 98 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Standard Permit Conditions
 In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site building(s) to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP).
 During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed.  All potentially friable asbestos containing materials (ACMs) shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Air Pollution (NESHAP) guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure.
 A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. Materials containing more than one-percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one-percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications.
 Based on Cal/OSHA rules and regulations, the following conditions are required to limit impacts to construction workers.
o Prior to commencement of demolition activities, a building survey, including sampling and testing, shall be completed to identify and quantify building materials containing lead-based paint.
o During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control.
o Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed Conformance with the standard permit conditions listed above would ensure that hazardous building materials such as asbestos and lead-based paint associated with the on-site structures are treated, removed, and properly disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 99 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The nearest school, Castlemont Elementary School, is located approximately 0.13 miles southeast of the project site. However, aerial photographs from the environmental site assessment indicate that the subject property had an agricultural history thereby resulting in a potential to find residual agricultural chemicals in the site’s soil. The mitigation presented in checklist question b) above is required to reduce significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
(No Impact)
The proposed project site is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2019).

The State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker indicates several closed leaking underground storage tank clean-up sites within 1,000 feet of the project site, the nearest being approximately 620 feet northwest of the site. Two permitted underground storage tanks were also identified approximately 650 feet southwest of the project site (at the Chevron Gas Station located on the corner of South Winchester Boulevard and Payne Avenue). None of these abovementioned sites would create a significant impact to the public or the environment as a result of the development of the proposed project (State Water Resources Control Board 2020).

The project site is also not listed on the California Environmental Protection Agency’s list of solid waste sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (California Environmental Protection Agency 2020). e) For a project located within an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public-use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
(No Impact)
The project site is not located within an airport land-use plan or within two miles of a public or public-use airport, nor would the project be subject to FAA airspace safety review pursuant to Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 100 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
FAR Part 77. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(No Impact)
The project would be designed to incorporate all Fire and Building Code requirements. The proposed infill development would not create any barriers to emergency or other vehicle movement in the area. Development of the proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (No Impact)
The project site is located within an urbanized area of San José and is surrounded by existing urban development. According to Cal Fire maps, the project site is identified as not being within a very high fire hazard zone (Cal Fire 2018). Therefore, development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 101 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.10.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Checklist Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,2,3,4,5
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,11,
21 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:

1. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,9

2. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,9

3. Create or contribute run-off water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted run-off; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,9

4. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,9
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,3,5,16
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,3,5,11,
16,18,
52 4.10.2 Environmental Setting
The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is the source for all groundwater in the County and is divided into three sub-basins: Santa Clara Valley, Coyote Valley, and Llagas. The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley sub-basin and the San Tomas watershed. The site is in FEMA Flood Zone D, which means that there is no analysis of flood hazards. The site is located within the Lexington dam failure inundation area, as identified on the General Plan EIR’s Figure 3.7-5.

The site is flat and onsite stormwater either infiltrates the existing landscaped areas of the project site or drain to the City’s existing 18-inch storm drain system in South Winchester Boulevard.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 102 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.10.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal/State
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act was established “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. It provides the United States Environmental Protection Agency the authority to implement pollution control programs. The Clean Water Act also sets water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained.

NPDES Waste Discharge Regulations
The federal Clean Water Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to protect water quality of receiving waters. Clean Water Act Section 402 prohibits discharge of pollutants to receiving waters unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that California’s water pollution control program has sufficient authority to manage the NPDES program under California law in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program is conducted through the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (regional boards). Refer to the State and Regional regulatory setting.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Program The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers programs to address flood hazards. FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program for this purpose. The program provides federal flood insurance and federally financed loans for property owners in flood prone areas. For this purpose, FEMA produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that define areas subject to inundation by flooding. Protective controls that must be implemented by project applicants to reduce flood hazards and damage to projects they propose are generally incorporated onto a flood hazard management program and General Plan policies of local jurisdictions. These tools assist cities in mitigating flooding hazards through land use planning and building permit requirements that must be implemented by applicants for projects located in specific flood hazard areas.

Regional/Local
Valley Water (Santa Clara Valley Water District)
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. The SCVWD requires permits for all well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration, and projects occurring on any SCVWD property or easement. Permits are required under the SCVWD’s Water Resources Protection Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 103 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Ordinance and the District Well Ordinance. The SCVWD along with 15 cities, the county and business, agriculture, streamside property owner and environmental interests set up the Water Resources Protection Collaborative, which has prepared and adopted Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resource in Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Plan
The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Plan (watershed management plan) implements the basin plan in the Santa Clara Basin. The watershed management plan consists of three reports prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative: Watershed Characteristics Report, Watershed Assessment Report, and Watershed Action Plan. The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative vision includes contiguous habitat within and along creeks, undeveloped floodplains, protection of aquatic animals from pollutants, drainage systems that treat run-off, and efficient use and re-use of water. Two Watershed Action Plan objectives relevant to the proposed project are inclusion of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative visions in specific plans, and retention/detention/treatment of storm water run-off.

Hydromodification Management Plan
This report, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, provides background, methodologies, and standards for developing hydromodification plans. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program maintains a set of maps that establish those areas for which a hydromodification plan is required for development projects.

Hydromodification plans are incorporated as part of the other programs established to ensure water quality. The project site is not located in an area defined by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as being located where a hydromodification plan is required.

According to the City’s Public GIS Viewer, the project site is within the hydromodification management zone identified as Catchments Draining to Hardened Channel and/or Tidal Areas; therefore, the proposed project would not be required to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Construction Activities The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for the State of California. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit – Order 2009-0009-DWQ, and as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. In order to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed by a certified Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) Plan Developer prior to commencement of construction.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 104 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Once grading begins, the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be kept on-site and updated as needed while construction progresses. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan details the site-specific Best Management Practices to control erosion and sedimentation and maintain water quality during the construction phase. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan also contains a summary of the structural and non-structural Best Management Practices to be implemented during the post-construction period, pursuant to the stormwater control practices and procedures encouraged by the City of San José and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

California Green Building Standards Code
Mandatory measures under this code include preparation of a SWPPP for non-residential developments under one acre, and control of storm water run-off for residential developments under one acre (both required at a lower acreage threshold than the NPDES permit). Interior and landscape water efficiencies are required for all development.

Municipal Regional Storm Water Permit
Storm water in Santa Clara County is managed in accordance with the Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay regional board (Permit Number R2-2009-0074, adopted on October 14, 2009, and revised on November 28, 2011). This permit regulates discharges from all municipal separate storm sewer systems in Santa Clara County, including the City. The urban runoff management program focuses on reducing pollutant transport through storm water drain systems into surface waters. In general, measures that will effectively limit storm drain pollutant discharge will also limit direct runoff of pollutants into creeks.

NPDES permit provision C.3.c requires development that creates or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces to incorporate low-impact development (LID) measures including source control measures, site design features, and treatment measures to manage storm water discharge run-off flows and reduce pollutant loads. Provision C.3.d of the NPDES permit requires that storm water treatment systems meet specific numeric sizing criteria.

NPDES permit provision C.3.g requires certain new development projects to implement hydromodification measures to manage increases in storm water runoff flow and volume so post-project runoff does not exceed the pre-project runoff rates and durations. NPDES permit provision C.6 requires adoption of a construction site inspection and control program. Construction-site erosion control plans must be consistent with local requirements, including the appropriateness and adequacy of proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) as well as verification that site operators/developers have complied with the Construction General Storm Water Permit before issuing the grading permit for a project. Inspections must be conducted to determine compliance with local grading and storm water requirements.

Provision C.14 of the NPDES permit details a control program for select contaminants to help determine whether urban runoff is a conveyance mechanism associated with impairment of San Francisco Bay by these pollutants and determine whether there are specific locations within urban watersheds where prior or current land uses contribute to discharges of these pollutants.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 105 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, an association of 13 cities and towns in Santa Clara Valley, the County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water, is the local entity within Santa Clara County responsible for implementing compliance with the Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES permit.

City of San José Development Policy 6-29 AND Policy 8-14 The City of San José’s Development Policy 6-29 and Policy 8-14 implement the stormwater treatment requirements of Provision C3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.

Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies which seek to prevent flooding and improved water quality in the City. Applicable policies include:

Policy EC-5.1 The City shall require evaluation of flood hazards prior to approval of development projects within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated floodplain. Review new development and substantial improvements to existing structures to ensure it is designed to provide protection from flooding with a one percent annual chance of occurrence, commonly referred to as the “100-year” flood or whatever designated benchmark FEMA may adopt in the future. New development should also provide protection for less frequent flood events when required by the State.

Policy EC-5.2 Allow development only when adequate mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design to prevent or minimize siltation of streams, flood protection ponds, and reservoirs.

Policy EC-5.7 Allow new urban development only when mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design to ensure that new urban runoff does not increase flood risks elsewhere.

Policy EC-5.11 Where possible, reduce the amount of impervious surfaces as a part of redevelopment and roadway improvements through the selection of materials, site planning, and street design.

Policy EC-5.16 Implement the Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to reduce urban runoff from project sites.

Policy EC-5.17 Implement the Hydromodification Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to manage runoff flow and volume from project sites.

Policy 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.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 106 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy MS-3.2 Promote 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.

Policy MS-3.3 Promote the use of drought tolerant plants and landscaping materials for nonresidential and residential uses.

Policy MS-3.5 Minimize areas dedicated to surface parking to reduce rainwater that comes into contact with pollutants.

Policy MS-20.3 Protect groundwater as a water supply source through flood protection measures and the use of stormwater infiltration practices that protect groundwater quality. In the event percolation facilities are modified for infrastructure projects, replacement percolation capacity will be provided.

Policy ER-9.1 Manage stormwater runoff in compliance with the City’s PostConstruction Urban Runoff (6-29) and Hydromodification Management (8-14) Policies.

4.10.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (Less Than Significant)
The proposed project has the potential to increase discharge of storm water pollutants during construction due to ground disturbance. Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a notice of intent to be covered under the State NPDES Construction General Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activities. However, the project would only disturb 0.69-acre for the development of the proposed project and, therefore, a Construction General Permit is not required.

A development projects in the City are required to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance whether or not the project is required to obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit for grading activity occurring during the rainy season (October 15th to April 15th), the project shall submit to the Director of Public Works, an Erosion Control Plan detailing best management practices that shall prevent the discharge of stormwater pollutants.

Pursuant to the City requirements and the following standard Permit Conditions have been included to reduce potential construction-related water impacts:

Standard Permit Conditions:
 Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sediment and other debris away from the drains.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 107 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities would be suspended during periods of high winds.
 All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces would be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary.
 Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind would be watered or covered.
 All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials would be covered and all trucks would be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.  All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites would be swept daily (with water sweepers).  Vegetation in disturbed areas would be replanted as quickly as possible.  All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to remove mud from tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system may also be installed at the request of the City.

The San Francisco Bay RWQCB issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) to standardize storm water management requirements. The MRP replaces the countywide municipal storm water permits with a regional permit for bay area municipalities, including the City of San José. This permit also regulates discharges from all municipal separate storm sewer systems in Santa Clara County. Projects that add and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface or 5,000 square feet of specified Special Land Use Categories must comply with the MRP. Projects subject to the provisions of the MRP, which include the proposed project, must incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) storm water treatment controls (e.g., bioretention facilities) to treat all post-construction storm water runoff.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP also has hydromodification controls, which are defined in the Hydromodification Management Plan. Projects may be deemed exempt from the MRP hydromodification controls if they do not meet the MRP size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the San Francisco Bay, drain into hardened channels, or are infill projects in sub-watersheds that are 65 percent or more impervious as shown on the HM Control Area Map. According to the City’s Public GIS Viewer, the project site is within the hydromodification management zone identified as Catchments Draining to Hardened Channel and/or Tidal Areas; therefore, the proposed project would not be required to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the MRP. However, the proposed project must comply with other MRP requirements to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm water treatment measures to address storm water runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows.

The City requires that if a redevelopment project creates, adds or replaces more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface that a Stormwater Management Plan must also be prepared.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 108 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
The purpose of the Stormwater Management Plan is to identify specific tasks and programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater.

The City’s Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management Policy 6-29 requires that all new and redevelopment projects implement post-construction BMPs and Treatment Control Measures.

According to the applicant’s site development permit, the proposed project will implement the following site design and source control measures and treatment systems in order to reduce impacts associated with post-construction stormwater runoff:
 Create new pervious areas such as landscaping;
 Direct runoff from roofs, sidewalks, and patios to landscaped areas;  Parking within the proposed building;
 Implement landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, and minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers; and  Create a bioretention area (two LID bioretention areas proposed at the northern and southern portions of the project site).

The City will review the Stormwater Management Plan and project plans for consistency with local requirements and the appropriateness and adequacy of proposed BMPs before issuance of grading permits as part of the building permit process. BMPs must include measures for soil stabilization, sediment control, sediment tracking control, wind erosion control, and non-storm water management, and waste management and disposal control. With the required preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan and the standard measures in conformance with the MRP, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or result in a significant water quality impact. The impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
(Less Than Significant)
Groundwater Supplies. Water service to the project site will be provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), which receives its water supply from several locations including local groundwater, local surface water, and imported treated. In addition, there is a fourth and growing source of supply, non-potable recycled water. Groundwater remains a major source of water supply for Valley Water. The proposed project does not propose any wells or groundwater pumping. Thus, the project would not decrease groundwater supplies such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Groundwater Recharge. The project site lies within the Santa Clara Subbasin, a subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The water district operates and maintains 18 major groundwater recharge facilities in the Santa Clara Valley and diverts water from local reservoirs and imported water to in-stream and off-stream percolation facilities to assist with Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 109 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
groundwater recharge in the Santa Clara Valley. According to the General Plan EIR, development and redevelopment of new residential, commercial, or industrial uses allowed under the General Plan is not proposed to occur within any of the water district’s percolation facilities for groundwater recharge nor will it otherwise affect the operation of the percolation or recharge facilities.

Development of the proposed project could potentially interfere with groundwater recharge by increasing the area covered by impervious surfaces. The proposed project includes four onsite bioretention areas to detain storm water runoff on-site and ultimately drain to the San Francisco Bay, thereby allowing for groundwater recharge.

Implementation of the policies listed under the Regulatory subsection under Regional/Local of this section would reduce adverse impacts to groundwater recharge areas. As a result of the implementing the applicable General Plan policies supporting groundwater recharge, the proposed project would not contribute to a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
c.1) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.2) Would the project substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.3) Would the project exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? c.4) Would the project impede or redirect flood flows?
(Less Than Significant)
The project site does not contain any streams or rivers. The project site is within a highly urbanized area with two buildings and associated parking area. A review of the project plans indicates that the proposed project would increase the development footprint at the project site and, therefore, the proposed project would increase impervious surfaces. Potential impacts from the increase in impervious surfaces are discussed below:

Erosion. Development of the proposed project may lead to significant siltation and/or erosion on- or off-site. However, by complying with the State’s Construction Stormwater Permit and the City’s Grading Ordinance as discussed in the standard permit conditions identified in Section 4.7, Geology/Soils, in the response to checklist question b), the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.

Flooding. The proposed project would drain into the four on-site drainage management areas; two additional drainage management areas are proposed but are offsite fronting South Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 110 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Winchester Boulevard. The proposed stormwater drainage system intends to capture the onsite storm water within the bioretention management areas and direct it to the either the three treatment control measures located in the landscaped areas on the east side of the project site or the fourth treatment control measure located at the southwest corner of the site. The storm water captured by the four treatment control measures would be directed to the City’s existing storm drain system located in South Winchester Boulevard, which ultimately flows into the San Francisco Bay, further reducing the potentially significant impact related to flooding onor off-site to a less-than-significant level.

Runoff. The storm water from the proposed project would drain into the above-mentioned bioretention areas and be directed to the existing City storm drain system located in South Winchester Boulevard. The proposed project would use on-site Best Management Practices for treatment and infiltration, and overflow would be directed to the City’s existing storm drain system that ultimately ends up in the San Francisco Bay. Moreover, the Stormwater Control Plan includes a Treatment Control Measure Summary Table (Sheet C4.0), which illustrates that the onsite bioretention areas incorporate low-impact development storm water treatment control measures. These identified best management practices and treatment control measures would reduce the potential for the project’s contribution to runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff to a less-than-significant level Flood flows. As discussed under checklist question d) below, the project site is located within an area where flood hazards have not been analyzed. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious features on-site, but would not impede or redirect flood flows to a significant level that isn’t already being managed by the proposed storm water control and treatment measures proposed onsite. Therefore, impacts related to flood flows as a result of the proposed project, would be less than significant d) Would the project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(Less Than Significant)
The project site is in Zone D under the FEMA Flood Zones, which means that there is no analysis of flood hazards conducted in the project site’s area. The project site is located a significant distance from the coast or any sizeable lakes or ponds, is not located nearby to steep hillsides, and its topography is flat. Therefore, the site is not located in an area subject to seiche or tsunami risk.

However, the site is located within the Lexington dam failure inundation area, as identified on the General Plan EIR’s Figure 3.7-5. The actual extent and depth of inundation in the event of a failure would depend on the volume of storage in the reservoir at the time of failure. The risks of failure are reduced by several regulatory inspection programs, and risks to people and property in the inundation area are reduced by local hazard mitigation planning. The California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams is responsible for regular inspection of dams in California. The California Department of Water Resources and local Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 111 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
agencies (e.g. Valley Water) are responsible for minimizing the risks of dam failure thus avoiding the release of pollutants due to project inundation (City of José 2011, p. 545).

Pollutants typical to be released during a storm event from a mixed-use project include small quantities of miscellaneous household cleaning supplies and other chemicals that could mix with the storm water. This would be considered a significant impact, but is reduced to a less than significant level with appropriate oversight via state and local agencies who are responsible for reducing the potential for the release of pollutants due to project inundation. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
(No Impact)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in the area, including the City, in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan or “Basin Plan”. The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses which the RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the Bay, as well as the water quality objectives, and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to control water quality and protect beneficial uses. These can include permits for “point sources” such as the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant or “non-point sources” such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system.

As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project developer is subject to the provisions of the MRP, as directed under the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and must incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) storm water treatment controls (i.e. the proposed bioretention areas) to treat all post-construction storm water runoff. By complying with the MRP requirements, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is a State law requiring groundwater basins to be sustainable. The act enables eligible local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies, develop groundwater sustainability plans for designated basins in their jurisdiction by 2020, and achieve groundwater sustainability within 20 years of plan implementation.

Valley Water is the groundwater sustainability agency for Santa Clara groundwater basin. In July 2019, the Department of Water Resources approved Valley Water as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin, and also approved Valley Water’s 2016 Groundwater Management Plan as an alternative for a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

The proposed project would not conflict with the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan because its onsite bioretention areas and treatment control measures would detain storm water runoff onsite and ultimately drain to the San Francisco Bay, thereby allowing for groundwater recharge and it would implement the policies listed under the Regulatory subsection under Regional/Local of this section in order to reduce adverse impacts to groundwater recharge areas. As concluded in the discussion under checklist question b), the proposed project would not contribute to a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and, therefore, would not conflict with the sustainable groundwater management plan.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 112 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.11.1 Land Use and Planning Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3,5 b) Cause any significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,2,3,10,
31, 32,
40, 41,
42, 44,
61 4.11.2 Environmental Setting
As indicated in Section 2.4, Project Location, of this initial study, the project site is surrounded by residences to the north and east, and commercial development to the south and west. The project site is proposed for rezone from Single-Family Residence Zoning District (R-1-8) to Commercial Pedestrian to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site. The site is also within the City’s West Valley Planning Area. The City’s Municipal Code indicates the Commercial Pedestrian zone is intended to support pedestrian oriented retail activity at a scale compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. This district is designed to support the goals and policies of the General Plan related to neighborhood business districts. The Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District also encourages mixed residential/commercial development where appropriate.

The General Plan designates the project site Neighborhood/Community Commercial, which is intended to support a very broad range of commercial activity, including commercial uses that serve the communities in neighboring areas, such as neighborhood serving retail and services and commercial/professional office development.

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The General Plan includes Community Design Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions that guide the form of future development in San José and help tie individual projects to the vision for the surrounding area and the city as a whole. The following policies are specific to aesthetic resources and apply to the proposed project:

Policy ES-6.1 Facilitate the development of new and promote the preservation and enhancement of existing health care facilities that meet all the needs of the entire San José community.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 113 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy ES-6.2 Maintain and update the Envision General Plan Land Use Transportation / Diagram as necessary to provide sufficient opportunities for hospitals and medical care facilities to locate in San José. Consider locating health care and medical service facilities, including hospitals, in residential, commercial, Urban Village, mixed use, Downtown, Transit Employment Center, Combined Industrial/Commercial, Industrial Park, and Public/Quasi-Public designations.

Policy ES-6.3 Recognizing that health care is a regional issue that crosses jurisdictional boundaries, work with the County, non-profits, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure that adequate, affordable health care facilities are available for all San José residents.

Policy ES-6.5 Encourage new health care facilities to locate in proximity to existing or planned public transit services. Coordinate with local transit providers as part of the development review process for new health care facilities, and encourage transit providers to provide new or enhance existing public transit services to the health care facility
Policy ES-6.12 Consider strategies and incentives to attract hospitals and other health care and medical service facilities to areas of San José where a demand for those services is demonstrated in analyses prepared by county, state, or professional consultants.

Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan
The following goals and policies from the Urban Village Plan relate to the proposed project under this land use section of the initial study:

Goal LU-1 Support new job-generating and area-regional serving commercial development in the Winchester Urban Village by increasing the Village’s commercial building square footage by at least 85 percent, or about 600,000 square feet.

Policy 3-4 Support a variety of commercial space to accommodate the needs of small, medium, and large companies
Policy 3-15 New development along Winchester Boulevard should include ground floor commercial and/or active spaces such as lobbies fronting the street and wrapping the corner when located on a corner lot.

4.11.3 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
The project site is an infill, redevelopment project and is consistent with the surrounding land uses. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 114 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
b) Would the project cause any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Less than Significant)
The project site is designated as Neighborhood/Community Commercial in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village. New development within this designation should include commercial space up to 3.5 FAR. This designation is intended to accommodate a broad range of commercial uses, such as neighborhood-serving retail stores and services, commercial and professional offices and private community gathering facilities.

The proposed project would conform with the General Plan and Winchester Boulevard Urban Village’s Neighborhood/Community Commercial land use designation. The project provides 107,709.90 square feet of commercial square footage which is below the maximum 3.5 FAR.

Additional discussion of the project’s consistency with the Urban Village is located within the Aesthetics and Transportation Sections of this Initial Study.

The project has a CP Commercial Pedestrian Zoning District and the project would comply with the required development standards and parking standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code.

Although the project site is considered urban development under the existing Habitat Plan, the proposed project is subject to the applicable Habitat Plan conditions and fees. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and the standard permit condition identified under checklist question a) and e), respectively, would reduce impacts to nesting bird habitats that may be impacted by the proposed project and ensure compliance with the City’s tree removal permitting and tree replacement requirements for ordinance-sized trees. As a result, the proposed project’s impacts on legally protected plant and wildlife species would be less than significant.

The proposed project’s design is consistent with the design standards identified in the Urban Village Plan by way of the materials used and architectural articulation on the proposed building (DS-9), the appearance of different elements in the project’s frontage through height variation and facades (DG-25 and DG-24), and the use of public art at the front of the project (Policy 4-12). Additional policies within the Urban Village Plan that the project is consistent with are identified in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, checklist question c).

The proposed project is also in compliance with the General Plan as follows: the project is within the Neighborhood/Community Commercial designation, which supports a very broad range of commercial activity, including commercial uses that serve the communities in neighboring areas, such as the project’s hotel use; General Plan Policy MS-13.1 because the project would implement the BAAQMD best management practices during all phases of construction and ground disturbance; and General Plan Policy ER-10.3, the standard permit Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 115 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
condition identified in Section 4.7, Geology/Soils, checklist question f) would be implemented by the project to reduce and avoid potential impacts to as yet unidentified buried unique paleontological resources.

Based on the above discussion, the hotel project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental impact.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 116 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 Mineral Resources Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Result in loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land-use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,2,3

4.12.2 Environmental Setting
According to the General Plan EIR, only one area of the City is designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and Reclamation of 1975 as containing mineral deposits.

This area, called Communications Hill, is located over five miles east of the project site.

4.12.3 Regulatory Setting
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
Chapter 3, Environmental Leadership, in the City’s General Plan sets forth sustainability goals for the City through 2040. The following mineral resources-related policies are relevant to the project :

Policy ER-11.4 Carefully regulate the quarrying of commercially usable resources, including sand and gravel, to mitigate potential environmental effects such as dust, noise and erosion.

Policy ER-11.5 When approving quarrying operations, require the preparation and implementation of reclamation plans for the contouring and revegetation of sites after quarrying activities cease.

4.12.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan? (No Impact)
The project site is not located in a portion of San José identified as containing mineral deposits by the City’s General Plan and is located over five miles from the only city-designated location (Communications Hill). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 117 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.13 NOISE

4.13.1 Noise and Vibration Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) 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 in applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 1,61
b) Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration
or ground borne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,61
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,
expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,5,16,
61 4.13.2 Noise Fundamentals
Noise is unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability.

Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence.

Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). 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 as loud. In terms of perception, generally speaking, the human ear cannot perceive an increase (or decrease) in noise levels less than 3 dB (WJV Acoustics 2020, p. 2). Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.

Typically, noise levels attenuate (drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of approximately 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Largely, noise from heavily traveled roads attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance; while usually noise from a point source attenuates at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by the introduction of intervening structures. For example, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm that breaks the line-of-sight reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 118 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important because sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level).

Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest root mean squared sound pressure level within the measurement period, and Lmin is the lowest root mean squared sound pressure level within the measurement period.

The time period during which noise occurs is also important since nighttime noise tends to disturb people more than daytime noise. Community noise is usually measured using a Day-Night Average Level (DNL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dB and are used interchangeably in practice.

4.13.3 Vibration
Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas sound is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (PPV [in/sec]) and is measured in vibration decibels (VdB).

Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude/decibels. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources inside buildings such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads.

Construction vibration is generally assessed in terms of PPV. The relationship of PPV to VdB is expressed in terms of the “crest factor,” defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the VdB amplitude. Typically, PPV is a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than VdB.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 119 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.13.4 Environmental Setting
The 1212 & 1224 Winchester Boulevard Hotel San Jose, California Environmental Noise Assessment (noise assessment), dated September 17, 2020 and prepared for the proposed project determined if significant noise impacts would be produced by the proposed project and described mitigation measures for noise if significant impacts were determined. The noise assessment was prepared by WJV Acoustics, Inc. and can be found in Appendix G.

Existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity are dominated by traffic noise along local roadways adjacent to and within the vicinity of the project site, specifically South Winchester Boulevard. Additional sources of noise during site inspection included aircraft overflights, birds, barking dogs, construction activities, and landscaping activities (WJV Acoustics 2020, p. 8).

WJV Acoustics conducted measurements of existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity from a total of eight different locations; two sites, located at the rear (in the backyard) of 1212 South Winchester Boulevard approximately 185 feet from the center of the roadway and in front of 1212 South Winchester Boulevard at a distance of approximately 90 feet from the center of the roadway, which were measured for long-term (24-hour) ambient noise levels. Both sides were exposed to traffic noise associated with vehicles on South Winchester Boulevard and noise associated with aircraft overflights and residential activities. The remaining six sites, located adjacent to or in close proximity to Winchester Boulevard, measured short-term (15-minute) ambient noise levels (refer to Figure 9, Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites, which provides a visual of the exact locations).

Measured hourly energy average noise levels at the long-term site located at the rear of 1212 South Winchester Boulevard ranged from a low 40.9 dB between 1:00 AM and 2:00 AM to a high of 51.7 dB between 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM. The maximum hourly noise levels at this site ranged from 52.7 to

74.6 dB with residual noise levels (or background noise in the absence of identifiable single noise events such as traffic, aircraft, and other local noise sources) at 53.1 dB. The measured hourly energy average noise levels at the long-term site located onsite fronting Winchester Boulevard ranged from a low 53.2 dB between 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM to a high of 66.6 dBA between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM. The maximum hourly noise levels at this site ranged from 71.5 to 93.6 dB with residual noise levels ranging from 41.5 to 54.7 dB. Refer to the Figure 10, Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data.

All six of the short-term monitoring sites were exposed to noise from traffic sources, various combinations of construction noise sources, aircraft overflights, and other sources typical of an urban residential environment (i.e., barking dogs, birds, landscaping activities, etc.). The overall noise measurement data, according to the noise assessment, indicate that noise in the project vicinity is highly influenced by vehicular traffic on South Winchester Boulevard. The highest level of noise for the short-term measurement sites was the location in the parking lot of the commercial building, A Grace Subacute & Skilled Care, south of the project site (identified as ST-6 in the noise assessment).

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 120 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.13.5 Regulatory Setting
State
California Building Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) requires that wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the adjacent roadways have a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the commercial property falls within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, industrial source or fixed-guideway noise source. The state also requires interior noise levels to be maintained at 50 dBA Leq (1-hr) or less during hours of operation at a proposed office building.

Regional/Local
General Plan
The General Plan includes goals and policies pertaining to noise and vibration. Community Noise Levels and Land Use Compatibility (commonly referred to as the Noise Element) of the General Plan utilizes the DNL descriptor and identifies interior and exterior noise standards for various land uses. The General Plan includes the following criteria for land use compatibility and acceptable exterior noise levels in the City based on land use types. Refer to Figure 11, Project Vicinity and Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites.

Additionally, policies in the General Plan have been adopted for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding noise and vibration impacts from future development. Policies applicable to the project are listed below:

Policy 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:

Interior Noise Levels
 The City’s standard for interior noise levels in residences, hotels, motels, residential care facilities, and hospitals is 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.
n Jose) 9-17-20 19
Project Site Source: WJV Acoustics 2021
Figure 9
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Project Vicinity and
Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites
0 130 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 122 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.
19-041 (Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9-17-20 9
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.).

Project Site
Source: WJV Acoustics 2021
Figure 10
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data
0 130 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 124 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

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 Project Site
Source: WJV Acoustics 2021
Figure 11
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
for Community Noise in San José
0 130 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 126 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 127 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
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.

Policy EC‐1.2 Minimize the noise impacts of new development on land uses sensitive to increased noise levels (Categories 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Table EC-1) 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.

Policy 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.

Policy 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.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 128 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy E-2.3 Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. For sensitive historic structures, a 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 vibration limit of 0.20 in/sec PPV will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction.

City Municipal Code
Table 10, Zoning Ordinance Noise Standards, which is from the San José Zoning Ordinance, presents the maximum noise levels allows for various land use types. The sound pressure level generated by any use or combination of uses on a property shall not exceed the decibel levels indicated in the table at any property line, except upon issuance and in compliance with a Special Use Permit as provided in Chapter 20.100.

Table 10 Zoning Ordinance Noise Standards
Land Use Types Maximum Noise Levels in Decibels at Property Line Residential, open space, industrial or commercial
uses adjacent to a property used or zoned for
residential purposes
55 Open space, commercial, or industrial use adjacent
to a property used or zoned for commercial
purposes or other non-residential uses
60 Industrial use adjacent to a property used or zoned
for industrial use or other use other than
commercial or residential purposes
70 SOURCE: City of San José Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.100.450 of the Municipal Code establishes allowable hours of construction within 500 feet of a residential unit between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other planning approval.

4.13.6 Impact Discussion
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 in applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation)
The following addresses the permanent operational and temporary construction increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable standards in the project’s vicinity. The noise and vibration effects associated with the project are described below and based on the noise study (see Appendix G).

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 129 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Operational Noise Impacts (Permanent Noise Sources)
Project-related Traffic Noise (Less than Significant). 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 locations of sensitive receptors (residences). A significant impact is also assumed to occur if traffic noise levels were to increase by three dBA at sensitive receptor locations where noise levels already exceed the City’s applicable noise level standards (without the project), as three dBA generally represents the threshold of perception in change for the human ear.

The project’s traffic noise analysis focused on impacts to residential land uses, as they represent the most restrictive noise level criteria by land use type provided in the General Plan.

The noise assessment is based upon the project-related traffic data provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants who prepared the 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development – Transportation Analysis for the proposed project (refer to Section 4.17, Transportation/Traffic). The City’s exterior noise level standard for residential land uses is 60 dBA DNL. Traffic noise was modeled at eight receptor locations (denoted as “R- #”) located at roadway setback distances representative of the sensitive receptors (residences) along each analyzed roadway segment. The receptor locations are shown on Figure 12, Locations of Modeled Traffic Noise Receptors.

Table IV in the noise assessment (Appendix G, and shown in Figure 13, Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise) shows that existing noise levels would not increase with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would have no permanent trafficrelated noise impact as the project would not increase noise levels.

Project Noise Levels During Operation (Less than Significant). Sources of operational noise from the proposed project include parking lot vehicle movements, outdoor human activity, and mechanical/HVAC rooftop systems. The proposed project does not include loading docks or trash compactors, but is anticipated to include approximately one to two truck deliveries per day. The drop-off area is proposed south of the parking access entry area where smaller trucks would utilize during deliveries. If larger truck deliveries were to occur, they would likely park along South Winchester Boulevard in front of the site.

According to the noise assessment, slow moving trucks 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 (WJV Acoustics 2020, p. 12).

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 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 130 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
levels associated with these activities cannot precisely defined due to variables such as the 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 would be located within the structure and under the proposed building, in the underground parking garage, and noise associated with vehicle movements would not be audible at any nearby sensitive receptor locations (WJV Acoustics 2020, p. 11).

Although not specifically shown on the applicant’s project plans, noise levels for potential for roof-mounted HVAC units were assessed to be conservative. Noise related to roof-mounted HVAC units would be in the range of 45-50 dBA at the nearest off-site residential land use.

These levels would generally not be audible above existing ambient noise levels at adjacent land uses and would not exceed any City noise level standards (p. 12). Therefore, the proposed project would have no permanent onsite operational noise impact as noise levels would not be audible.

Construction Noise (Temporary Noise Sources)
Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Figure 14, Typical Construction Equipment, taken from the noise assessment (Appendix G), provides the typical types of equipment that is used for construction activities along with noise levels associated with distance for each type of equipment.

Project Noise Levels During Construction (Less than Significant with Mitigation).

Pursuant to General Plan Policy EC-1.7, significant construction noise impacts would 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 twelve months.

Impact N-1: Construction of the proposed project would occur within 500 feet of residential land uses and within 200 feet of office uses and would last for approximately 24 months, thereby resulting in a significant impact. The following mitigation measure is required in order to ensure temporary construction noise levels are less than significant.

Winchester Hotel Project, San Jose) 9-17-20 22
RE 5: LOCATIONS OF MODELED TRAFFIC NOISE RECEPTORS
Project Site
Project Site
Source: WJV Acoustics 2021
Figure 12
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Locations of Modeled Traffic Noise Receptors
0 130 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 132 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.
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 without the 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. Access to 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 variables such as the 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 voiceHoweverall project parking spaces will be located within the structure of the building Project Site
Source: WJV Acoustics 2021
Figure 13
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Project-Related Increases in Traffic Noise
0 130 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 134 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

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
EŽŝƐĞŽŶƚƌŽůĨŽƌƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚDĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌŝŶŐWůĂŶƚƐ, 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 respect to 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 Project Site
Source: WJV Acoustics 2021
Figure 14
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Typical Construction Equipment
0 130 feet
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 136 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 137 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Mitigation Measure
N-1 Construction Noise Logistics Plan: Prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit and implement a construction noise logistics plan that specifies hours of construction, noise and vibration minimization measures, posting and notification of construction schedules, equipment to be used, and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator. The noise disturbance coordinator shall respond to neighborhood complaints and shall be in place prior to the start of construction and implemented during construction to reduce noise impacts on neighboring residents and other uses. The noise logistic plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning or Director’s designee of the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of any grading or demolition permits.

As a part of the noise logistic plan and project, construction activities for the proposed project shall include, but is not limited to, the following best management practices:
 In accordance with Policy EC-1.7 of the City’s General Plan, utilize the best available noise suppression devices and techniques during construction activities.  Limit construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless permission is granted with a development permit or other planning approval. No construction activities are permitted on the weekends at sites within 500 feet of a residence.
 Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses.  Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
 Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
 Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.  Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of “noisy” construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 138 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites.
 Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.

Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
 Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit.

Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific “construction noise mitigation plan” and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential uses.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 identified above would reduce impacts related to temporary noise level increase due to the of construction of the project. By requiring that a construction noise logistics plan be provided to minimize disruption and annoyance, limit hours, and reduce construction noise emanating from the site, the temporary noise increase in ambient levels would be less than significant. This mitigation would be implemented by the applicant and would be required to be in place prior to issuance of any ground disturbing or grading permits. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
(Less Than Significant)
Construction
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 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 a vibratory roller, according to the applicant, as such a project condition of approval will be included in the project permit to reflect the project’s proposed construction.

Project Condition of Approval: The project will not include or conduct pile-driving activities or vibratory rollers during all phases of construction.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 139 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
The City of San José relies on guidance developed by Caltrans to address vibration impacts from development projects in San José. A vibration limit of 12.7 mm/sec (0.5 inches/sec), PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards. A conservative vibration limit of 5.0 mm/sec (0.2 inches/sec), PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but structural damage is a major concern. For historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened, a conservative limit of 2.0 mm/sec (0.08 inches/sec), PPV is used to provide the highest level of protection. The noise assessment identifies Caltrans as being the source of guidance for much of the data and standards used in the preparation of the noise assessment.

Vibration from demolition and construction activities would be anticipated to be detected at the closest sensitive land uses (residences located north and east of the site), especially during demolition (pavement/concrete breaking), movements by heavy equipment or loaded trucks and during some paving activities (if paving activities were to occur) (WJV Acoustics 2020, p. 14).

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 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.

Operational
After full project build out, it is not expected that ongoing operational activities would result in any vibration impacts at nearby sensitive uses, such as the residences to the north and east, in excess of the vibration limit of 0.20 in/sec PPV as indicated in the City Policy EC-2.3. 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?
(No Impact)
The proposed project is not within the vicinity of an airport land use plan nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport. The project site is also located outside the City of San José’s projected 60+ dB CNEL aircraft noise impact area of the Airport.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 140 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of San José has policies that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project. The noise environment at the site and at nearby land uses is primarily from vehicular traffic on the surrounding roadways. Based on noise measurements taken at the site, the day-night average noise level ranges from 53.1 to 66.5 dBA Ldn.

Recreational Noise Impacts. The proposed project includes a common outdoor seating area on the second floor that would be centrally located. This seating areas would be surrounded by the building along the southern, eastern, and western sides and would be open to the north. The residential courtyards would provide amenity spaces for future residents of the project and would be predominantly shielded from surrounding uses by the new development. A substantial increase in noise would not occur a result of future residents using the courtyard areas for recreational purposes. Use of this area would not substantially increase noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors in the area.

On-Site Proposed Land Uses – Exterior Noise Levels (No Impact). As identified above, the proposed project includes one the second-floor common use seating area, which could emit noise to the surrounding neighborhood. The area would have partial (varying) acoustical shielding from Winchester Boulevard traffic noise by the building itself (varying due to the position anybody may be in that common area). Generally speaking, those using this area would be standing or seated way from the edge, which faces Winchester Boulevard, when there is a break of line-of-sight between the noise source (traffic on Winchester Boulevard) and the receiver (those on the common area) there is resulting acoustical shielding and reduction of noise levels. There would 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 would be expected to be approximately 55‐60 dB (WJV Acoustics 2020, p. 15).

The General Plan establishes exterior noise level standard of 60 dB for residential land uses including hotels and motels); therefore, the exterior noise levels from proposed onsite sensitive land uses would not exceed existing City standards, resulting in no impact.

On-Site Proposed Land Uses – Interior Noise Levels (No impact). The General Plan establishes an interior noise level standard of 45 dB for residential land uses and the noise assessment indicates that worst-case scenario of noise exposure at the closest exterior facades to South Winchester Boulevard would be approximately 67 dBA. Therefore, the noise assessment states that the proposed residential construction must be capable of providing a minimum outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction of approximately 22 dBA (67 dB - 45 dB = 22 dB) (p. 15).

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 141 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
The noise assessment assumes that residential construction methods complying with current building code requirements would reduce exterior noise levels by approximately 25 dB or more if windows and doors are closed. This would be sufficient for compliance with the City’s 45 dB 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 would be required.

Therefore, the interior noise levels from proposed onsite sensitive land uses is not expected to exceed existing City standards so long as current building code requirements are met, resulting in no impact.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 142 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.14.1 Population and Housing Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1

4.14.2 Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, the City has an estimated 2019 population of approximately 1,043,058 and an estimated 335,887 housing units. The City’s housing stock has an average of 3.19 persons per household in 2020 (California Department of Finance 2020b). Based on the City’s General Plan EIR, the projected population in 2035 would be approximately 1.3 million persons occupying approximately 430,000 households. However, the proposed project would not increase the current population. As a commercial hotel project, it would provide a total of ten employees and the project would provide 119 rooms.

4.14.3 Regulatory Setting
Regional/Local
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
ABAG is part regional planning agency and part local government service provider. They accomplish goals by providing planning services and cost-effective ABAG member services to local governments struggling with rising costs and diminishing incomes. ABAG helps local governments absorb growth and adapt to change while addressing sustainability, resilience and equity issues.

Their services to members include research and analysis, education and outreach, and regional coalition coordination. ABAG’s expert data and tool resources and robust planning department — building solutions on a wide range of issues — help every community around the Bay adapt to change.

Envision San José 2040 General Plan
Chapter 4, Quality of Life, in the City’s General Plan addresses how quality of life will be advanced as the City promotes economic development and continues to grow a safe, diverse, and thriving community with employment opportunities, well-maintained infrastructure, urban services, and cultural and entertainment options. Although the proposed project does not involve the increase in residences or population within the City, the following policies are considered relevant to the proposed project:

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 143 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
Policy H-3.2 Design high density residential and mixed residential/commercial development, particularly development located in identified Growth Areas, to:

1. Create and maintain safe and pleasant walking environments to encourage pedestrian activity, particularly to the nearest transit stop and to retail, services, and amenities.

2. Maximize transit usage.

3. Allow residents to conduct routine errands close to their residence, especially by walking, biking, or transit.

4. Integrate with surrounding uses to become a part of the neighborhood rather than being an isolated project.

5. Use architectural elements or themes from the surrounding neighborhood when appropriate.

6. Provide residents with access to adequate on- or off-site open space.

7. Create a building scale that does not overwhelm the neighborhood.

8. Be usable by people of all ages, abilities, and needs to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.

Policy H-4.1 Implement green building principles in the design and construction of housing and related infrastructure, in conformance with the Green Building Goals and Policies in the Envision General Plan and in conformance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance.

Policy H-4.2 Minimize housing’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and locate housing, consistent with our City’s land use and transportation goals and policies, to reduce vehicle miles traveled and auto dependency

4.14.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
(No Impact)
A project can induce substantial population growth by: 1) proposing new housing beyond projected or planned development levels, 2) generating demand for housing as a result of new businesses, 3) extending roads or other infrastructure to previously undeveloped areas, or 4) removing obstacles to population growth (e.g., expanding capacity of a wastewater treatment plant beyond that necessary to serve planned growth).

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 144 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
The proposed project does not involve housing and, therefore, would not result in a direct population increase in San José. The project proposes a hotel with up to 119 guest rooms within the Winchester Urban Village Area. The growth Capacity established by the General Plan’s Appendix 5 for the Winchester Urban Village area is 470,000 jobs and 120,000 residential units. The hotel would employ approximately 10 employees which is 0.002 percent of the planned economic growth for this growth area in the General Plan. The project does not propose the extension or roads or services to previously undeveloped areas and would not remove obstacles to population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
The project site includes commercially used buildings (built as single-family residences and converted to commercial uses), and associated parking areas and sheds, which would be demolished for development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 145 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

4.15.1 Public Services Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of or need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the following
public services:
- Fire Protection?
- Police Protection?
- Schools?
- Parks?
- Other Public Facilities?
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☒
☒
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☒
☒
☒
1,2,3,4,
5,10

4.15.2 Environmental Setting
San José Fire Department
Fire protection services to the project site are provided by the San José Fire Department. The fire department responds to all fires, hazardous materials spills, and medical emergencies (including injury accidents) in San José. The fire department senior command structure consists of a fire chief, an assistant fire chief, three deputy chiefs, and three deputy directors. There are currently 33 active fire stations in San José. The fire station nearest to the project site is Station #10, approximately one mile north of the site.

San José Police Department
Police protection services for the project site are provided by the San José Police Department. The police department is divided into four geographic divisions: Central, Western, Foothill, and Southern. The project site is directly served by the San José Police Department Western Division.

The officers are dispatched from the police headquarters located at 201 West Mission Street, located approximately four miles northeast of the project site.

Schools
According to the City’s Public View GIS, the project site is within the Campbell Union High and Campbell Union Elementary School Districts (City of San José 2020). The schools within these two districts nearest to the project site are:
 Castlemont Elementary School, approximately 0.13 miles southeast; Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 146 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 Monroe Middle School, approximately 0.33 miles northeast; and  Del Mar High School, approximately one mile east.

Parks and Trails
According to the City’s Public GIS Viewer, the nearest parks to the project site are the Marijane Hamann Park, located approximately 0.36 miles east of the project site, Starbird Park, located approximately 0.85 miles west of the project site, and Frank M. Santana Park, located approximately one mile north of the project site. For more information on parks and trails, refer to Section 4.16, Recreation.

Libraries
San José is served by the San José Public Library System, which consists of one main library (Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.) and 23 branch libraries. The nearest public library is the Bascom Branch Library, approximately one-mile northeast of the project site.

4.15.3 Regulatory Setting
State
California Government Code Section 65996 (School Facilities) State law identifies the payment of school impact fees as an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s impact on school facilities. The project applicant can either negotiate directly with the affected school district or make a payment per square foot of multi-family units and new commercial units (prior to the issuance of a building permit). The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
Chapter 4, Quality of Life, in the City’s General Plan includes goals, policies and implementation actions for various public services, including education, libraries, health care, public safety (police and fire), and code enforcement. In addition, the Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Subsection of the same chapter, provides the goals, policies, and actions related to parks, open space, and recreational facilities. Although the proposed project does not involve the increase in residences or population within the City, the following policies within the City’s General Plan are germane to the proposed project:

Policy CD-5.5 Include design elements during the development review process that address security, aesthetics and safety. Safety issues include, but are not limited to, minimum clearances around buildings, fire protection measures such as peak load water requirements, construction techniques, and minimum standards for vehicular Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 147 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
and pedestrian facilities and other standards set forth in local, state, and federal regulations.

Policy ES-3.1 Provide rapid and timely Level of Service response time to all emergencies:

1. For police protection, use as a goal a response time of six minutes or less for 60 percent of all Priority 1 calls, and of eleven minutes or less for 60 percent of all Priority 2 calls.

2. For fire protection, use as a goal a total response time (reflex) of eight minutes and a total travel time of four minutes for 80 percent of emergency incidents.

3. Enhance service delivery through the adoption and effective use of innovative, emerging techniques, technologies and operating models.

4. Measure service delivery to identify the degree to which services are meeting the needs of San José’s community.

5. Ensure that development of police and fire service facilities and delivery of services keeps pace with development and growth in the city.

Policy ES-3.2 Strive to ensure that equipment and facilities are provided and maintained to meet reasonable standards of safety, dependability, and compatibility with law enforcement and fire service operations.

Policy ES-3.9 Implement urban design techniques that promote public and property safety in new development through safe, durable construction and publicly-visible and accessible spaces.

Policy ES-3.10 Incorporate universal design measures in new construction, and retrofit existing development to include design measures and equipment that support public safety for people with diverse abilities and needs. Work in partnership with appropriate agencies to incorporate technology in public and private development to increase public and personal safety.

Policy ES-3.11 Ensure that adequate water supplies are available for fire-suppression throughout the City. Require development to construct and include all fire suppression infrastructure and equipment needed for their projects.

Policy ES-3.17 Promote installation of fire sprinkler systems for both commercial and residential use and in structures where sprinkler systems are not currently required by the City Municipal Code or Uniform Fire Code.

Policy ES-4.9 Permit development only in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety, and welfare of persons in that area can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 148 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
City Municipal Code - Chapter 19.38, Parkland Dedication Ordinance and Chapter 14.25, Park Impact Ordinance
The City of San José has adopted the Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO, Municipal Code Chapter 19.38) and Park Impact Ordinance (PIO, Municipal Code Chapter 14.25) requiring new residential development to either dedicate sufficient land to serve new residents, or pay fees to offset the increased costs of providing new park facilities for new development. These ordinances are intended to reduce the extent to which new development would exacerbate the existing shortfall of park and recreational facilities. Under the PDO and PIO, a project can satisfy half of its total parkland obligation by providing private recreational facilities on-site. For projects over 50 units, it is the City’s decision as to whether the project would dedicate land for a new public park site or accept a fee in-lieu of land dedication.
`4.15.4 Impact Discussion
a.1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives? (Less than Significant)
The proposed project would replace two commercially-used buildings with a 119-guestroom hotel. Development of the site would incrementally increase the need for fire protection services but would not significantly impact the response time or require construction of new facilities.

As reported in the General Plan EIR, according to current Fire Department protocols, fires in structures four stories or taller in height will require responses from more than one fire station.

The fire department’s Fire Station #10 is located approximately one mile north of the project site and Fire Station #4 is located approximately 1.65 miles northeast of the project site.

Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Fire Code standards
The General Plan EIR evaluated the need for new fire stations with buildout of the General Plan and concluded that implementation of the general plan would result in an increase in calls for fire protection services but would not result in the need for construction of fire stations in excess of those currently planned. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan development envisioned for the project site and, therefore, would not result in the need for construction of fire stations in excess of those currently planned. Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with applicable City polices to promote public and property safety.
a.2) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 149 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives? (Less than Significant)
The proposed project would replace two commercially-used buildings with a 119-guestroom hotel.

Development of the site would incrementally increase the need for police protection services but would not significantly impact the response time or require construction of new facilities.

The police department headquarters that currently serve the project site is located approximately four miles northeast. As reported in the General Plan EIR, police services would continue to be dispatched from police headquarters and no additional stand-alone police facilities are anticipated. The General Plan EIR evaluated the need for new police stations with buildout of the General Plan and concluded that implementation of the general plan would result in an increase in calls for police protection services and may require the need for expansion of existing police facilities or the location of new facilities within planned growth areas. Construction of new police facilities would require supplemental environmental review, but is not anticipated by the General Plan EIR to have significant adverse environmental impacts.

The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with current building codes and would be required to be maintained in accordance with applicable City policies to promote public and property safety. The increase in police service needs by the proposed development represents a small fraction of the total growth identified in the General Plan, which anticipated the type of development proposed at this location. The proposed project, by itself, would not preclude the police department from meeting their service goals and would not require the construction of new or expanded police facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact police protection services requiring the construction of new or remodeled facilities.
a.3) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives? (No Impact)
The proposed project is the development of a hotel building and, therefore, has no impact on school facilities. There would be no need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact. a.4 and a.5) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered park or other governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives? Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 150 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
(No Impact)
The proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in use of the City’s existing parks because it does not include housing for residents or an increase in the City’s population.

Therefore, would not result in the provision or need for new or physically altered park facilities or other governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 151 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.16 RECREATION

4.16.1 Recreation Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1

4.16.2 Environmental Setting
According to the Activate SJ Strategic Plan (2020-2040), the City currently has more than 3,500 acres of parkland; 206 parks, approximately 558,000 square feet of community center space, and 61 trail miles. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City provides and maintains developed parkland and open space to serve its residents. The City’s Departments of Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services are responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of all City park facilities. According to the City’s Public GIS Viewer, the nearest parks to the project site are the Marijane Hamann Park, located approximately 0.36 miles east of the project site, Starbird Park, located approximately 0.85 miles west of the project site, and Frank M. Santana Park, located approximately one mile north of the project site.

According to the General Plan EIR Figure 3.9-4, the nearest trail to the project site is the Los Gatos Creek Trail, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site.

4.16.3 Regulatory Setting
Local
Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The following General Plan policies are germane to the proposed project:

Policy PR-1.2 Provide 7.5 acres per 1,000 population of citywide /regional park and open space lands through a combination of facilities provided by the City of San José and other public land agencies.

Policy PR-2.4 To ensure that residents of a new project and existing residents in the area benefit from new amenities, spend Park Dedication Ordinance (PDO) and Park Impact Ordinance (PIO) fees for neighborhood serving elements (such as Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 152 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
playgrounds/ tot-lots, basketball courts, etc.) within a 3/4-mile radius of the project site that generates the funds.

4.16.4 Impact Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact)
The proposed project includes the development of a new hotel building, with no increase in the City’s population. Development of the project site would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which could have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 153 Initial Study City of San José May 2021

4.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

4.17.1 Transportation/Traffic Environmental Checklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Checklist
Source(s)
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,57,58
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 1,57,58
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,57,58
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 1,57,58

4.17.2 Environmental Setting
The 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development – Transportation Analysis (transportation analysis) (Appendix H) and the 1212 South Winchester Hotel Development – Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan (Appendix I) were conducted for this project to determine, and recommend measures to reduce, potential traffic impacts related to the project. These determinations and recommended measures are based on the standards and methodologies set forth by the cities of San José and Campbell and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

The VTA administers the County Congestion Management Program.

The project site is located within the adopted Winchester Boulevard Urban Village Plan (Urban Village Plan). According to the General Plan, the Urban Village Plan strategy fosters:
 Mixed residential and employment activities attractive to an innovative work force;  Revitalization of underutilized properties that have access to existing infrastructure;  Densities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking; and  High-quality urban design.

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

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 154 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 SR 17 is a six-lane freeway in the vicinity of the site. It extends from Santa Cruz to I-280 in San José, 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 José, 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.
 Winchester Boulevard is a divided six-lane north-south roadway that runs from Los Gatos to Lincoln Street in Santa Clara. In the project vicinity, Winchester Boulevard is considered a “Main Street” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph with sidewalks on both sides of the street and on-street bike lanes between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Direct access to and from the project site is provided via a right-in/right-out only driveway along Winchester Boulevard.  Moorpark Avenue is a four-lane east-west roadway that runs from Lawrence Expressway to Bascom Avenue. Moorpark Avenue is considered a “City Connector Street” based on the City’s General Plan 2040 Street Typologies. East of Bascom Avenue, Moorpark Avenue makes a transition into a three-lane one-way roadway to Leigh Avenue. Moorpark Avenue provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.

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 and presented on Figure 15, Existing Roadways and Transit Services:
 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 has a posted speed limit of 35 mph with sidewalks on both sides of the street and on-street bike lanes between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Direct access to and from the project site is provided via a right-in/right-out only driveway along Winchester Boulevard.  Moorpark Avenue is a four-lane east-west roadway that runs from Lawrence Expressway to Bascom Avenue. 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.
 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.

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. Payne Avenue provides access to the project site via Winchester Boulevard.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 155 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 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; and  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; Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 156 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 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, between Hamilton Avenue and Westfield Avenue; and  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 of the transportation analysis.

The locations of three pedestrian footbridge crossings over freeways in vicinity of the project site are listed below and shown in Figure 7 of the transportation analysis.  SR 17 pedestrian footbridge connecting Westfield Avenue and Downing Avenue;  I-280 pedestrian footbridge connecting Moorpark Avenue and Cypress Avenue; and  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 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 of the transportation analysis.

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 north of the project site at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Williams Road.  Local Route 56 runs from Lockheed Martin to Tamien 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 from the project site at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue.
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
Project Site Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2020 Figure 15
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel Initial Study Existing Roadways and Transit Services
Not to scale
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 158 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
This side intentionally left blank.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
1212-1224 South Winchester Boulevard Hotel 159 Initial Study City of San José May 2021
 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 at most approximately 500 feet away from the project site along Winchester Boulevard.  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 from the project site at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Hamilton Avenue.

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

4.17.3 Regulatory Setting
State
State Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and tasked the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) with establishing new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 requires the new criteria to “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” It also states that alternative measures of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” With the adoption of SB 743 legislation, public agencies are now required to base the determination of transportation impacts on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than level of service. In adherence to SB 743, the City has adopted a new Transportation Analysis Policy, Council Policy 5-

San Jose City CouncilAugust 23, 2022

San Jose City Council
August 23, 2022