San Jose City Council
August 23, 2022

EXHIBIT L – PUBLIC COMMENTS
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Stat us:

I [External Email]
Dear Michelle,
Tom Morman
Monday, December 16, 2019 11:12 AM
Flores, M ichelle
Kohl, Cassidy; Gail Morman
1212 & 1224 S Wincheste r Blvd (C19-031 & H19-038)
Follow up
Completed
Some of us met with Cassidy Kohl on December 3rd to discuss our concerns over the proposed 6 story hotel at 1212 & 1224 S.

Winchester Blvd. I wanted to be sure I am able to receive all reports and applicable informat ion on the project. Is it necessary t o subscribe to somet hing in order to receive all t he informa tion on this?
Is this project currently at a standstill? Are the re changes being proposed? We are concerned about how a 6 sto ry hotel w ill affect t he single fam ily homes behind it, as well as how it w ill impact parking, t raffi c and t he design of Winc hester Blvd as a pedest rian and neighborhood friendly urba n village.

I appreciate your help in getti ng all the information.

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

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

I [External Email]
Hi Michelle ,
M ike Drabkin
Friday, June 19, 2020 4:17 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
1212 & 1224 S Winchester
Flag for follow up
Completed
>
We wanted to ema il our comments regarding the 1212 & 1224 S Winchester project ahead of our scheduled zoom meeting w ith the Vice Mayor .

We are among the concerned cit izens, liv ing in close prox imity to th is site, who are opposed to the project in its current form .

Being realistic about this, we comp lete ly understand that something w ill be erected on this comb ined parcel. However, after multip le meet ings w ith our neighbors , the developer, and Mr. Jones, and after reviewing the available project documentat ion, it 's difficult to shake the fee ling that multip le exceptions to the rules & regulations are being approved or at least considered in order to sign off on th is project -­ all to have an end result that is undesirable to the folks, living nearby or passing through th is area on a regular basis. We hope we can do better .

The concerns that are most frequent ly brought up in our discussions seem to be the follow ing:

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

The traffic congestion
• We're being told that the street (Winchester Blvd.) w ill be widened to accommodate, but we just can't see how . The site is near the place where 3 lanes become 2 in the NB direct ion. • The tim ing of the traff ic study is not being communicated . It needs to be done when the traff ic is back to norma l after all the businesses and schoo ls are back in operation .

Fire safety
• We understand that the Fire Department has to sign off, but w ithout side or back access to the property , we 're having troub le seeing how a 6-story building can be protected in case of fire .

Aside from the above concerns , it is not clear to most of us neighbors how this business fits into the W inchester Urban Village deve lopment plan, since it does not benefit the local commun ity and is likely to have a negat ive effect on our qua lity of life .

Best regards,
M ike & Galina Drabk in
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject :

I [Externa l Email]
Ms. Flores,
Thursday, June 18, 2020 1:43 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
1212 & 1224 S W inchester; Proj ect File C19-031 & H19-038 I would like to register my strong disagreement with the proposal for a hotel built near the intersect ion of Payne and Winchester . As a 40 year resident on Castlemont Avenue , I am beyond concerned with the increase in traffic that this project will unintentionally cause on our street and in our neighborhood . Here is why:
1) To enter the proposed project going south on Winchester , requires a u-turn at the light at Payne & Winchester to make a right turn onto the property. If one misses the entrance , or cannot turn for some reason, the driver will make the first right, which is Fireside, and then right onto the first 'through' street which is Castlemont. 2) At the end of Castlemont is a 4 way stop with Castlemont School on the SE corner . This 4 way stop is very busy when school is in session with children, parents, and cars. Turning right onto Payne to access Winchester is a very short block with over 5 driveways that exit onto Payne ( 2 apartment complexes , Taco Bell, EARS and retail strip containing a Baskin & Robbins, Little Caesar and 2 other businesses. Cars heading west on Payne to access Winchester often stack up though the 4 way stop while waiting for the light to change.
3) Payne Avenue is a short-cut used by commuters ... via Almarida and Central Avenues off of Hamilton as well as a main access for the residents. Commuters also cut throug h our neighborhood streets to avoid the light at Payne & Hamilton, using Castlemont as the short-cut.
4) Castlemont has seen a sharp increase in the number of cars parked on our street as a result of over-flow from the apartments as well as the employees of EARS, Taco Bell and the retail strip.
5) Employees of the proposed hotel may well use our street for parking as my understand ing of the number of parking spaces in this project proposal are not sufficient for all the guests and all employees.
6) Guests of the hotel will most probably use ride-share compan ies, such as Uber, Lyft and taxis to get around rather than the inefficient VTA bus schedule. I know I certainly would!! These ride share companies will most probably wait on Castlemont for customer contact.
7) There will be increased traffice with the opening of the Safeway at West Park Plaza as well as from the residents of the Lynhaven complex that is nearing complet ion at Williams and Winchester. Need we add more?
8) There have been many changes along Winchester ... some better than others. But I feel strongly that this project will negative ly impact the surrounding area and especially the residents who live on Redoaks. I ask you .... would you want this project built in your back yard?? Increase in noise from parking cars, emptying of dumpsters , truck deliveries, employees' coming and goings , etc. as well as the loss of privacy due to the height of the building will negatively impact the Redoaks homeowners and the neighborhood as a whole.
9) Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Jackie Williams
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From: Juma, Mon ica Paige >
Sent: Mond ay, August 10, 2020 8:00 PM
To: Flores, M ichelle; Blanco, M aira
Cc:

Subject:

Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn ; Kohl, Cassidy
1212 -1224 Winchester Rd
I [External Email]
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for the meeting tonight. Here are my comments/concerns again below.

Monica
1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

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

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

3) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129.

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

4) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused more than $100 Million in damage. My daughter, 11 years old at the time, remembers walking with friends in the neighborhood and wondering if it was raining as ashes were coming down from the fire more than 1 mile away. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is 20’ from neighboring homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60’ from the rear fence. A fired in this hotel could be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated:
““The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus.” We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the project advances. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is reasonable for the City to allow this project to move forward.

5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Review Letter 10/9/19: “The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network.”
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the “Potential Mid-Block Crossing” (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy. We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward.

6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. Revie w Letter 10/9/19:
“Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading
space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum o f 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading sp
ace on the floor plan.” (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft;
Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes =
107,079.9 sq ft)
The Off-Street Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request respo
nse from Owner.

7) Drop Off” zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: “New developments should include drop- off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient.” And Policy 6-24: “Ensure that drop- off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes.” And Policy 6-45:
“Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character.” This seems the most egregious violation – a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones.

8) Privacy/Safety - Height reduced 5” to achieve a 20’ Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65' hotel by 5 inches to go from a requ ired 40ft setback to a 20' setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65'.

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

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5" drop in height to avoid the 40' setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65' mandate a 40' setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hote l to protect the privacy neighbors?
Received reply: "The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states 'non-occupiable architectural featu res such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height '. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets."
We request to know How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requ irement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40' setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in th is setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors.
9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. We request Planning D ept post all documents.
10) Also, as was brought up tonight it seems like an issue of people vers us profit, it wou ld be great t o know how much the property owner is making and how muc h t he property values of t he homes adjacent w ill decrease. Is the re any com pensation fo r thi s? This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from unt rusted sources.

From: Marlene Schwilk
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:30 PM
Flores, M ichelle To:

Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: 1212 S. W inchester Hotel Proposal
I [External Email]
Good Morning .

My husband and I strong ly object to the proposed hotel at 1212 S. W inchester for the fo llowing reasons:
1) It is too ta ll. It w ill be tower ing over the single family residences on Red Oaks Drive and Castlemont Avenue, blocking the light and air space.
2) It wi ll increase the park ing problems , traff ic, noise, and trash on our streets . We already have a park ing issue because of the Castlemont School park ing, and residents from neighboring apartments and streets using Castlemont Avenue as a park ing lot. We never get our street cleaned by the city , and we are constant ly picking up the litter left by these people . 3) It wi ll substant ially decrease our property values . Who w ill want to move here w ith all of these problems?
4) There is nothing positive about increasing the urban density with this hote l i n the present era of dead ly, uncontrollable virus infections, and increasing gang vio lence.

Sincere ly,
Marlene and Fred Schwilk
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from unt rusted sources.

From: Tom Morman >
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:16 PM
To: Flores, M ichelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy; Gail Morman
Subject: add it iona l quest ions - 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l I [External Email]
Hi Michelle ,
I don't know if you saw my message from May 20th , but I had some additional questions and I am adding one more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your help with this, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

---------
- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tom Morman
Date: Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:39 PM
Subject: Re:

Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel To: Flores, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>, Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>, Gail Morman

Dear Michelle,

Thank yo
u very much for clarifying the lot size and for sending the survey.

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

FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31'-0")

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

Also, from the photos in the owner plans, it does not appear that Winchester is being widened, but will continue to narrow at
1212 S Winchester. It also appears from the digitalized photo that the "Loading Space" and "Drop-Off" areas are along the street in front of the hotel further narrowing traffic when vehicles are there. Is this correct?

Also regarding the height, the height of the building was lowered by 5 inches in order to obtain a 20' rear setback instead of a 40' setback. However, there are to be at least 3 sizeable structures or enclosures extending well above the roof. Does these exceed the 65' height?

Again, many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

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

Hi Tom,

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

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

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

Kind regard s,
Mic helle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www .sanjoseca.gov/planning
From: Flores, Michelle
Sent: Monday , May 11, 2020 5:15 PM
To: 'Tom Morman' >
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] > Subject: RE: Quest ion re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel Hi Tom,
The calculation for the lot size without the streets and sidewa lk was prov ided by the applicant . I w ill share your calculations w ith the applicant and have him provide the exact dimensions of the lot he used in his calculation. I bel ieve the app licant used exact measurements so that's why the calculation he prov ided is different than the one in your email.

Kind regard s,
Mic helle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www .sanjoseca.gov/planning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Thursday , May 7, 2020 12:42 PM
>
To: Flores, Michelle <michelle.flo [email protected] >
Cc: Kohl, · < · ·oseca.gov>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] >; Gail Morman
Subject: Re: Quest ion re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l [External Email]
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for getting back to me on this.

Can you please check my math:

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

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

Hi Tom,
I updated the project description on line. The first subm itta l was for 118,528 square feet . The project description in the second subm itta l was revised to 107,079 .9 square feet . The floor area used for the FAR calculation is 86,548.5 square feet . The below-ground garage is not counted towards the FAR calculation. The size of the lot w ithout the streets and sidewa lks is 24,547.77 square feet .

Kind regards,
M ichelle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floo r
http://www.sanjoseca .gov/plann ing
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Wednesday , May 6, 2020 8:08 PM
To: Flores, M ichelle <[email protected] >
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <Cassidy.Kohl@sanjoseca .gov>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] > Subject: Quest ion re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l [External Email]
Dear Michelle ,
Can you please help me with how the Floor Area Ratio {FAR) of 3.5 is being determined for the parcels at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd for the proposed hotel?

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

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

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

Regards,
I Tom Morman
Tom Morman
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

I [External Email]
Markus Harry >
Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:01 AM
Flores, M ichelle; Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie
Comments/Concerns about 1212 & 1224 South Wincheste r Hotel project, Project fi le: C19-031 & H19-038
Follow up
Completed
Miche lle, Cassidy and Chappie,
As a Resident in this commun ity, my fami ly and I have many concerns about th is project and how it's going to affect our neighborhoods. I'm sure many have written as well. I will bul letize our concerns, wh ich I'm sure are possibly congruent to many others expressing the ir concerns as wel l.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Markus and Ayi Harry, and daughter, Lili
M arkus Harry
-
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Greetings all -­
I live at
hal stone
Monday, August 10, 2020 4:53 PM
Flores, M ichelle; Blanco, Ma ira
Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Comments for 1212 -- 124 S. Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016 Theses are my concerns about the ote l project:

There was no informat ion to address any of the concerns/quest ions we had. Specifically, we needed informat ion on Traff ic,# of Employees, Parking, Fire Plan, Off-Street Load ing Space, Drop Off Zones. We also requested informat ion on Bicycle/Pedestr ian Friend ly Environment, as well as Privacy & Safety Issues. W ithout this informat ion it isn't possible for us to inte lligently address the project w ith respect to the neighborhood concerns .

Trying not to be too repet itive , the above information is what we (the neighbo rs of th is proposed faci lity) need to inte lligent ly determ ine how this will impact our neighborhood. W ithout it, we cannot comment positive ly or negat ively on the proposa l.

I request that you prov ide this informat ion as soon as possible so we all can get a better fee ling for how th is new facility will impact our neighborhood .

Thank you .

Hal Stone
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Dennis Talbert
Sent: Monday , August 10, 2020 11:20 AM
Flores, M ichelle; Blanco, Ma ira
Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
To:

Cc:

Subject: Comments for 1212 - 1224 S Winches ter Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016 I [External Email]
All,
Please find following some questions I have regarding 1212 -1 224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016 for your meeting tonight.

1. Question for Planning Department and Developer:

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

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

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

4. Question for Planning Department and Council
Representative: In a city with a widely acknowledged
lack of affordable housing why is development priority
concerned with projects that are aimed at market rate
solutions and thus fail to address the affordable
housing issue in the Winchester Urban Village area?
Regards,
Dennis Talbert
San Jose, CA resident of North Hamman Park
Neighborhood
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Seshadri Sathyanarayan
Monday, August 10, 2020 8:59 AM
Flores, M ichelle; Blanco, Ma ira
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Comments for 1212 - 1224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016; Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
I [External Email]
Hi,
We have previously expressed concerns that the review and approva l process for the hotel project does not appear to have taken into account the guidelines for height and commerci al use aspects .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residents of Hamann Park
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Marlene Schwilk
Monday, August 10, 2020 12:14 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie
Comments for 1212-12224S W inchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19-038; SP20-016 The follow ing are our requests:
1) TRAFFIC: A traff ic report w ith the TDM included
2) EMPLOYEES: An independent review of the owner's estimated number of employees is needed. 3) PARKING SPACES: A review of the number of park ing spaces, based on the independent review of the number of employees
4) FIRE PLAN: A Fire Department review as soon as possible, and before the project advances 5) PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT: Explain how this project is consistent with the Pedestr ian/B icycle Friend ly Environment Policy 3-20, in the Plann ing Department Review letter dated 10/9/19 to the owner
6) OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE: See Review Letter 10/9/19 . The loading space needs to be labeled on the floor plan.
7) DROP-OFF ZONES: Review the appropr iateness of the Drop- Off Zones 8) REAR SETBACK: Explanat ion of the height of the structures on the roof which exceed 65 feet . We request a review and considerat ion to requ ire at least a 40 foot setback . We request that emp loyee staff and residents not be allowed in the setback space, respect ing the privacy and safety concerns of next door neighbors
9) POST ALL DOCUMENTS: The planning Department need to post all documents on the Permit Site.

Thank you .

Marlene and Fred Schwilk
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Mary Kean >
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 5:40 PM
Flores, M ichelle To:

Subject: File No. SP20-016 Meeting deta ils:

Importance: High
I [External Email]
M ichelle,
I would like to know the status of what happened at the meet ing on August 10. I was out of town and not able to attend . I wou ld also like to know the CEQA stud ies and traff ic studies in part icular that was done concern ing the hote l in light of the other development in the area.

As a registered civil Engineer and a. Home owner in the area, I can tell you th is projects is a terrib le idea and I strongly disagree w ith this project and do not want it built in th is area . It is the wrong fit for the wrong space. The biggest concern I have is traff ic and change in zoning :
• demo lit ion of two existing single-fam ily residences for a commercia l hotel is changing the zoning which I disagree w ith .
• THe 6 story hote l backs onto resident ial homes will deep ly effect those homes • The 0.69 lot is very small and traff ic into/out of the hote l w ill be a problem . • Across the street is Bethel hote l which gets traffic and you have a large apartment complex now across the street which once Covid is over w ill bring big traff ic headaches to Winchester and nearby streets .
• Dunk in Donuts just opened up and it is creat ing traff ic problems on Winchester nearby • Traffic on Eden w ill defin itely be affected as spillover from W inchester .

Thank you for your time and attent ion to my pub lic comment . I liven Bluebird Drive near the corner of Payne and Winchester and I drive Winchester Rd every day to/from work and I am deeply concerned about the effect on traffic from this hotel.

Mary Kean, PE
Registered Professiona l Engineer/C ivil Engineer
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

I [External Email]
Amy Finch >
Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:17 AM
Flores, M ichelle; Anurag Simgeker
Hote l on Winchester Questions and Concerns
Follow up
Completed
Hi Michelle - I'm writ ing regarding the hote l that is being proposed to go in on W inchester .

I am concerned about the security that will be in place in the hote l. I wou ld like to know what security measures w ill be incorporated?
W ill there be on-site security?
W ill the hote l staff be tra ined in security measures and how to prevent and screen for a potent ial crime? W ill the hote l accept cash or w ill it be on ly credit card? How many staff will there be in the hotel? Also, I'm wondering if you have any insight as to what is going on with the other resident ial homes on W inchester unt il Greentree Way. If it 's not available now, when will it be available? Thanks, Amy
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Helen Matsumoto
Wednesday, June 17, 2020 10:00 AM
Flores, M ichelle
Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie; Brian Matsumoto
Hote l proposa l
Hello M ichelle, Chappie, and Cassidy,
We are very concerned about the City's proposa l to build a 6 story hote l on Winchester , wh ich is right behind our home.

We have severa l concerns:
(1). What is the need for a hotel in a resident ial neighborhood? (one shou ld be mindfu l how COVID-19 w ill impact the future way of doing business such as less conferences , etc) If there is a need for addit iona l hote ls in San Jose, it shou ld not be in a suburban residentia l area. A hotel in a commerc ial area wou ld be more viable.
(2). Another major concern is safety.

The site plan dep icts a 20 feet rear setback . The exact word ing on page A.02 from the document , (Winchester Hote l_H19-038, 2nd Submitta l Plan Set_ Part lpdf) states :

A 20 feet rear setback and 6 feet side setback is provided , and addit ional sidewa lk easements w ill be prov ided to allow for 26 feet sidewa lk are provided on W inchester avenue .

The quest ion comes up of safety concerns , especially fire . There is no prov ision that a fire truck w ill be able to reach the rear of the building . This is part icular ly alarm ing, if there is a fire or some emergency at the rear of the hote l. The on ly access is from the street and because of the height of the build ing, it w ill be extremely difficu lt to fight a fire at a rear mid level location. The hoses wi ll either have to go over the top of the six story and then down or through the hotel ground floor and then up.

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

Another safety issue for th is locat ion is having a bar around the corner from an element ary school This is not conducive to the concept of having a safe neighborhood for the children and certainly not beneficial to our neighborhood .
(3). We are concerned about the menta l health impact . Having a SIX-story building will block out the sun, making it a less healthy env ironment for the neighborhood . Many stud ies have shown peop le suffer SAD (seasonal affect ive disorder) due to less sun, especially in the w inter . A SIX-story building w ill block off sun all year round.

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

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

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

(5). Other concerns with this hotel proposal is parking and traffic flow.

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

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

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

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

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ............................................................................... ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• As there is no rear entrance to the proposed hotel , it has to be assumed that any large deliveries w ill need to be offloaded on Winchester Blvd. As th is is a hote l, there w ill need to be mult iple deliveries each day, not only for room services but for the food / bar services that are proposed . As it has been indicated in a prev ious comment , this wi ll definite ly disrupt any tra ffic flow . There are current ly on ly two lanes Northbound and to close one lane will create a lot of frustrat ion to commuters/trave lers not associated w ith the proposed hote l.

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

A proposed hote l that is six stor ies (largest neighborhood bldgs. are two stor ies), limited parking, traff ic concerns , having an alcoho lic license, fire and safety concerns , at this location does not fit in the spir it of neighborhood and urban villa ge deve lopment .

Respectfully,
Brian Matsumoto , engineer
Helen Matsumoto, social worker
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:59 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

This project should not be allowed in our single family home neighborhood. We have a terrible parking problem currently with the apartment complexes in the area. There is no space for additional cars from a 113 room hotel, for guests or workers. We can't allow this project to go forward. Who would want a hotel in their backyard built on two single family home lots? Nobody

Name: Rita Jelincic
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server: s
jpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

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

From:

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

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

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

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

Name: lisa szuter
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server: s
jpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

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

From:

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:25 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

This combined lot is too small to small to support a 6 story hotel. It will block out the light and airspace of the single family residences nearby.

Name: Marlene Schwilk
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0

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

From:

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:31 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

A condominium project would be a better fit for the community than a hotel.

Name: Marlene Schwilk
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0

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

From:

Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:39 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

78 parking places are not adequate for this project. All of the overflow parking will be on our residential nearby streets.

Name: Marlene Schwilk
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:77.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/77.0

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

From:

Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 9:57 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

[External Email]

As a resident of Castlemont Avenue, only a very short walking distance from where this hotel is proposed (one street over), I, as well as my family, and many other's in the community, have grave concerns about the viability of this project and how it will most certainly affect our community in a negative manner.

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

Parking: Obviously, with the owner of this project, asking for a reduction in parking by Half, will undoubtedly put cars for this hotel directly into our neighborhoods. The "Circle" of Payne, Winchester, Fireside and Castlemont is clearly evident how the overflow parking, and traffic, from this hotel is going to work. We are already impacted in our neighborhoods from the overflow parking of high density housing on winchester, Loma Verda, impala (Where Permit parking was instituted), now our neighborhood is overrun with parking and permit parking for our area, has been denied. Now, with this hotel, there is no other place for patrons to park other than in our close neighborhoods, we will have 24 x 7 foot traffic on our streets, with an increase in litter, noise all hours of the day and night, as well as no place for residents, or friends or family to park due to the hotel. One look at a map will immediately show what will happen when the hotel reaches 50 percent or more capacity, as the developer clearly, with the plans, has not accounted for not near enough parking. This is clearly obvious, as the patrons (or

valet's) will immediately take the cars onto fireside, to redoaks, or up fireside to Castlemont and park wherever there is street parking. In addition to this, the Hotel will probably charge a fee for valet parking while we, the residents and many LONG standing residents of this neighborhood, literally wake up every morning to our neighborhoods filled with "guest" parking (Which is "Free"). this one hundred plus room hotel is vastly DEVOID of proper parking. WE, as residents, request, that if this plan is to go ahead, we immediately be granted permit parking in our surrounding areas. this, of course, would be a "Deal Breaker" for the developer ans one only has to look at the plan and the map to fully understand exactly what the obvious outcome is: Massive impacts on our neighborhood.

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

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

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

Other community neighborhood questions/concerns:

Drop Off" zones for Proposed Hotel.

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

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

The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled.

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

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

Fire Plan:

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

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

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

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

Request:

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

2. Traffic Report - "Under Review" since January

Request: Please have the Traffic Report completed with the TDM.

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

Request: The Planning Dept require that the Owner provide a full report as outlined in their Review Letter to the Owner on 10/9/19:

"Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use."

We would like to see that employees, details and hours of operation include the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM, guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men's locker room, women's locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing.

(On-line sources substantially higher for a mid level hotel: range of 60 to 119

a) "The amount of the staff engaged in hotel activity largely depends on the status of the hotel.

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

11.9 = 95 employees)

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:% 2F%2Fwww.city-of-
hotels.com%2F165%2Fhotel-staff-
en.html%23:~:text%3DThe%2520amount%2520of%2520the%2520staff%2C5%2520star%2520hotel%25 20%25E2%2580%2593%252020%2520person&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov %7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata =nFCZzkXap5qtiUtMtHO6bpOyDpptJPdgEE%2F%2FhHuPfwA%3D&amp;reserved=0 .

(See Hotel Business, Hotel Staff

b) "Number of Employees. Class as measured by full service or limited service refers as much to the size of the staff as to the physical amenities.The in-between class of hotel uses an in-between number of employees. That ratio ranges from 0.5 (one-half) an employee per room to as much as a 1:1 ratio."

Check-in Check-Out: Managing Hotel Operations, Second Edition, by Gary K. Vallen and Jerome J. Vallen.

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

Chapter One: The Traditional Hotel Industry, p15. See Attachment

c) "Security measures were used widely in hotels. The study found that a variety of devices and systems were utilized by the hotels to maintain guest safety.Most hotels had a small number of full-time security officers. More than half (51.4 percent) indicated that they had one or two security officers."

Hospitality Review, Exploring the Relationship Between Hotel Characteristics and Crime, January 1998 (p. 87-88)

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3 A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.fiu.edu%2Fhospi
talityreview%2Fvol16%2Fiss1%2F%3Futm source%3Ddigitalcommons.fiu.edu%252Fhospitalityreview%2 52Fvol16%252Fiss1%252F9%26utm medium%3DPDF%26utm campaign%3DPDFCoverPages&amp;data =01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be 061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=r%2BV%2BYU%2FIF8S4DkmiWmpJRSibU%2FdmrI%2BIl b5bltwPM%2FE%3D&amp;reserved=0

d) Labor Intensive. "In many industries, for example, automotive, electronics, and technology, sophisticated equipment has replaced people in many work activities. By contrast, less of this has occurred in hotels because employees are needed to provide services and products. The traveling public increasingly wants and will pay for services and products delivered by employees who consistently attain required standards. A hotel's ability to attract and retain qualified staff members who consistently deliver excellent service is a key to the success or failure of a hotel."

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3 A%2F%2Fwww.pearsonhighered.com%2Fa
ssets%2Fsamplechapter%2F0%2F1%2F3%2F4%2F013433762X.pdf&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flo res%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26 139%7C1&amp;sdata=8u9SGBH19qumKz5Zb4XNioXQKlvVXgAN8rtK5WSSDZ8%3D&amp;reserved=0

Overview of the Hotel Industry, p 8-9

4. Fire Plan: "Aerial Access" The Owner's Winchester Hotel Plan shows the Fire Layout (p. C5.0) using aerial access from Winchester Blvd because there are no side and rear Fire Apparatus Access Roads, as required in other Winchester properties (Lynhaven Apartments currently under construction, Villa Cortina condos, A Grace Subacute care facility next door, etc) We ask why aren't the same safety measures expected here, especially in light of the Urban Village description of these parcels as "smaller, shallow parcels fronting Winchester and abutting single family residences" and their location abutting a single family neighborhood, next door to a subacute care facility, across the street from Bethel Church and around the corner from Castlemont School.

a) OSHA statement: "The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus. Building codes contain a concept known as frontage increase. This allows the maximum size of the building to be increased if a structure has more than a certain percentage of its perimeter on a public way or open space accessible to fire apparatus. Ideally the full perimeter would be accessible; however, this is not always feasible."

OSHA, Fire Service Features of Buildings and Fire Protection Systems, p.14

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Fwww.osha.gov%2FPublications%
2FOSHA3256.pdf&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b02 08d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=muKcybGiTyydeOzW%2Bv Du3u1fQDNlHuHMAPp%2BQkOkgc4%3D&amp;reserved=0

a) Santana Row fire - The 2002 Santana Row fire had embers igniting roofs half a mile away: "The Santana Row fire first was reported at 3:36 p.m., Aug. 19, 2002...The fire went to 11 alarms and caused more than $100 million in damage. Embers from that fire ignited roofs half a mile away, destroying more than 30 apartments and townhouses in the Moorpark neighborhood, causing $2.5 million in damage."
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2F2012
%2F08%2F18%2Fsantana-row-fire-
facts%2F&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91189746ed3b0208d83b bc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=C3S8raGHe3Cn3yyfd8vgD%2B8Jwj MsF6KZPpNaw8d0sbc%3D&amp;reserved=0

Request: Provide Fire Dept Review of Fire Plan. Provide risk assessment to neighborhood and surrounding facilities. Is there an evacuation plan need for subacute care facility patients?

5. Off-Street Loading Space

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

On 6/2/20, Michelle Flores emailed that the Owner "would need to go through a separate process to request a loading zone in front of the project site."

Request: Label the location of the loading zone.

6. "Drop Off" zones and sidewalk parking driveway front of the hotel (Owner Plan, A.08)

--Goal UD-14, "Parking & service areas should not be visible from the public realm."

-- DS-20, "Surface parking are not permitted between sidewalk and building facade."

--DS-22 "Loading & service areas should not be visible from Winchester Blvd and shall be located at the rear of a property, in structures, or in the interior of blocks."

--Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient."

--Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes."

--Michelle Flores email, 6/2/20 - "They would need to go through a separate process to request a loading zone in front of the project site."

Request: Please demonstrate in writing how the project complies with the above policies. Describe where cars will wait to enter the garage. Describe how long and where cars will be allowed to park while dropping off or picking up guests.

7. "20 feet sidewalk"

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

Request: Please complete the review regarding the improvements for the public right-of-way before the Planning entitlement.

8. Height and Rear Setback of 20'

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

Winchester Urban Village GOAL UD-10: "Protect privacy and light and air access of existing residential neighborhoods in and near the Village."

Request: How tall are the structures on top of the roof? Do the above design features violate UD-10?

9. Bicycle Lane safety

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

Recently a new bike lane has been added on Winchester next to the two existing travel lanes. If this is permanent, now the bicycle lane will be located between the flex lane and the travel lanes. How will this affect bicycle safety? How many cars will be allowed to wait on the sidewalk at the Garage Entry?

Request: Please clarify the location of the bicycle lane. Please show how this "Ensures that drop- off/pick up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes."- Policy 6-24. If the bicycle lane has been moved from adjacent to the sidewalk to the space between lanes, clarify how this is a protected bike lane per Policy 6-95.

10. Open Space

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

Request: Where is the open space for public use?

11. Miscellaneous Questions

a) Requested: Where is the location of HVAC; what is the noise level?

Where will the air/fumes be vented from the Basement Garage?

Received: "The Building department and Fire department are also reviewing this project. They will look at other requirements such as the HVAC and ventilation of the underground garage."

Request: Can the Owner give us the specifics regarding the location of the HVAC system and how the underground garage will be ventilated. Where will the fumes be released?

b) Requested: If a hotel is built at this location, what becomes of the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" suggested at 1212 S Winchester, per Urban Village, Figure 4-1?

Received: "Figure 4-1 shows a potential crossing, not a requirement. The improvements for the public right-of-way are reviewed under each Planning application to determine what is appropriate for the project"

Request: Who reviews the public right-of -way improvements? When will a decision be made on the Mid-Block Crossing?

c) Requested: What are the smoking restrictions for the 20' setback close to residential homes?

Received: "Regulations for smoking are under Title 9 of the Municipal Code for Health and Safety, which is outside of Planning's jurisdiction."

d) Requested: Why is the Lot Line Adjustment Permit ( AT19-043) showing 0.86 gross acre site when all other documents show it as 0.69 acre site.

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

NOTE: The legal description which is contained in the Survey (S.01) of the Builder's Plan does indicate that the property lines were 35' longer than what they are now, which would have made them 0.86 gross acre site. However, the legal description was written in 1945 & 1946 and describes the property lines extending to the center line of Santa Clara and Los Gatos Road, which clearly is now Winchester Blvd. The Survey itself states the AREA of the parcels as 30,074.52 sq.ft. or 0.69 Acres.

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

Link - Winchester Blvd Urban Village:
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2
Fshowdocument%3Fid%3D32893&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f9 1189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=ZJ1dTn6riU Q%2FiyYURlgsw3VStHJpCFjff0pKL218h5k%3D&amp;reserved=0

Link - What is a Special Use Permit:
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https% 3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2
Fshowdocument%3Fid%3D15471&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f9 1189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=hELNxbr18 5ptcE0mZ%2F86e48Qs2nAsPabEhaaP03oQBE%3D&amp;reserved=0

Link - San Jose - Fire Apparatus Access Roads
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3 A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseca.gov%2Fhome%2
Fshowdocument%3Fid%3D9157&amp;data=01%7C01%7Cmichelle.flores%40sanjoseca.gov%7Cf5577f91 189746ed3b0208d83bbc05dd%7C0fe33be061424f969b8d7817d5c26139%7C1&amp;sdata=xMELz9yhO 7wVpj6j6bHawKifxySAoeYAksWUPYr%2Bpmw%3D&amp;reserved=0

Attachment: Review Letter mentioned in the Permit Search for SP20-016.

Attachment: Check-in Check-Out: Managing Hotel Operations, Second Edition, by Gary K. Vallen and Jerome J. Vallen. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright � 2013 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter One: The Traditional Hotel Industry (See p15)

Name: Markus Harry
Email:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36

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

From:

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 12:07 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

[External Email]

I would like to express my concern with rezoning this lot to commercial, especially for a 120 room hotel.

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

Name: Aurie
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 13_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

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

From:

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

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

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

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

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

Name: DENNIS TALBERT
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.2 Safari/605.1.15

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

From: t
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:16 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

We have been requesting the traffic report, which has been under review since January (8 months). We are very concerned about traffic congestion. A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliveries, service needs, Uber/Lyft transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with an elementary school around the corner. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We feel this is inappropriate location for a 6- story hotel. It burdens, rather than serves the community.

2) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner's estimated number of employees. We suspect that the Owner's estimate of 10 employees is understated. An on-line search for estimates for a hotel with 119 rooms shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The owner's estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men's locker room, women's locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use." We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other concerns arise such as quality, safety and security.

3) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129.

This number is based on 119 rooms plus 10 employees. We feel this request for a reduction is grossly inappropriate. We question whether the estimate of 10 employees is realistic, based on on-line sources showing estimates for a similar sized hotel of 119 rooms is 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). Vehicle Parking Requirement is 1 per guest room or suite, plus 1 per employee. Hence it seems an appropriate estimate of needed parking spaces is 119 + 95 = 214 parking spaces at the very minimum. We request a review of this estimation of employees and if it is underestimated, the number of required parking spaces needs to be appropriately increased. We feel the current number of required parking spaces, 129, is already not

adequate, especially if the number of employees is more realistically 95-238. Hence, we feel the request for reduction in parking spaces is inappropriate. Parking reduction is subject to review of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) plan, which has yet to be completed (has been under review for 8 months). A hotel that cannot provide for its own parking is a burden on a neighborhood already impacted by apartments where people need to share space to afford rents, thereby worsening the availability of parking on neighborhood streets. We have an elementary school, Castlemont, around the corner. Many children walk to school and we are concerned about their safety with increased traffic.

4) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused more than $100 Million in damage. My daughter, 11 years old at the time, remembers walking with friends in the neighborhood and wondering if it was raining as ashes were coming down from the fire more than 1 mile away. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is 20' from neighboring homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60' from the rear fence. A fired in this hotel could be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated: ""The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus." We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the project advances. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is reasonable for the City to allow this project to move forward.

5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Add who this letter is from/to (Review Letter from City to Owner? - its not clear) Review Letter 10/9/19: "The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network."
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy.

We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward.

6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. (From City to Owner?) Review Letter 10/9/19: "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The Off- Street Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner.

7) Drop Off" zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient." And Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes." And Policy 6-45: "Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character." This seems the most egregious violation - a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones.

8) Privacy/Safety - Height reduced 5" to achieve a 20' Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65' hotel by 5 inches to go from a required 40ft setback to a 20' setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65'.

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

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5" drop in height to avoid the 40' setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65' mandate a 40' setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors? Received reply: "The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states 'non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height'. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets." We request to know How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40' setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors.

9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. We request Planning Dept post all documents.

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

Name: Miyuki One Bear
Email:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36 Edg/84.0.522.52

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

From:

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:23 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

A 65 foot tall building in this small space does not fit the privacy and safety concerns of the residential neighborhood behind it.

Name: M. Schwilk
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0

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

From:

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 8:46 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

These are my concerns.

1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

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

We are very concerned about traffic congestion. A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliveries, service needs, Uber/Lyft drive sharing transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with multiple elementary schools and a middle school within a 1 mile radius. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We feel this is an inappropriate location for a 6-story hotel. The hotel is completely out of place and would add tremendous traffic during the morning commute to school with buses, parents, and commuters going to work alongside the many workers and services the hotel would require. It burdens, rather than serves the community.

2) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129. This number is based on 119 rooms plus 10 employees. We feel this request for a reduction is grossly inappropriate. We question whether the estimate of 10 employees is realistic, based on on-line sources showing estimates for a similar sized hotel of 119 rooms is 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). Vehicle Parking Requirement is 1 per guest room or suite, plus 1 per employee. Hence it seems an appropriate estimate of needed parking spaces is 119 + 95 = 214 parking spaces at the very minimum. We request a review of this estimation of employees and if it is underestimated, the number of required parking spaces needs to be appropriately increased. We feel the current number of required parking spaces, 129, is already not adequate, especially if the number of employees is more realistically 95-238. Hence, we feel the request for reduction in parking spaces is inappropriate. Parking reduction is subject to review of a TDM (Traffic Demand Management) plan, which has yet to be completed (has been under review for 8 months). A hotel that cannot provide for its own parking is a burden on a neighborhood already impacted by apartments where people need to share space to afford rents, thereby worsening the availability of parking on neighborhood streets.

We have an elementary school, Castlemont, around the corner and multiple other schools within a mile radius, many of whom can be seen on a week day walking home after school, walking to/from the bus stop, and parents walking with their children. Many children walk to school and we are concerned about their safety with increased traffic. As a parent who raised my children in this neighborhood, I believe it would lessen the community that we have worked to cultivate. This is an oversized commercial venture for our residential community. My daughter worked for the Campbell Union School District at

Castlemont and other schools, and personally knows and works with many of the students who walk in this area to school every day. It is frightening to think of such an establishment marring what is a family centered area with so many children near by.

3) Fire Plan
We remember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused $130 Million in damage. This fire devastated the area and it is clear we must cannot have building complexes like that so close to a neighborhood with many families, schools, and a convalescent hospital. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is directly adjacent to a family home and in front of several more family homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60' from the rear fence. A fire in this hotel would be a deadly devastation to the neighborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated: ""The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building's perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus." We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fire Dept Review be done before the approval of the project is considered. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is safe or responsible for the City to allow this project to move forward.

4) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner's estimated number of employees. We strongly suspect that the Owner's estimate of 10 employees is understated. An online search for estimates for a hotel with 119 rooms shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The owner's estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men's locker room, women's locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, and plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use." We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other issues arise like quality, safety and security.

5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Add who this letter is from/to (Review Letter from City to Owner? - its not clear) Review Letter 10/9/19: "The proposed project (hotel) is preliminarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network."
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendly area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the "Potential Mid-Block Crossing" (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy.

We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward.

6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. (From City to Owner?) Review Letter 10/9/19: "Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section 20.90.420 requires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor plan." (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan, C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The Off- Street Loading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner.

7) Drop Off" zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the underground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban Village Policy 6-23: "New developments should include drop-off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient." And Policy 6-24: "Ensure that drop-off/pick-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes." And Policy 6-45: "Reduce the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character." This seems the most egregious violation - a single driveway for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks parking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones.

8) Privacy/Safety
- Height reduced 5" to achieve a 20' Rear Setback The Owner adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65' hotel by 5 inches to go from a required 40ft setback to a 20' setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65'.

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

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5" drop in height to avoid the 40' setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65' mandate a 40' setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors? Received reply: "The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states 'non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height'. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets." I request to know. How tall are the structures on top of the roof? We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40' setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors.

9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. The community requests Planning Dept post all documents.

Name: Shehana Marikar
Email:

Telephone Number:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/79.0

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

From:

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Subject: Planning Department

[External Email]

This project should not be allowed in our single family home neighborhood. We have a terrible parking problem currently with the apartment complexes in the area. There is no space for additional cars from a 120 room hotel, for guests or workers. We can't allow this project to go forward.

Name: Rita Jelincic
Email:

Web Server:
sjpermits.org
Client Information: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

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

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

I [External Email]
SP20 -016
Ron Canario
Monday, August 10, 2020 1:52 PM
Flores, M ichelle
pre-meet ing comments SP20-016
I oppose this structure because:

The proposed hotel would vio late the privacy of all neighbor ing homes, which is primarily resident ial.

The added traffic will be unbea rable on an already congested Wincheste r Blvd , PARTICULARLY after the 630 unit structure on Wincheste r & Williams has been comp leted and filled.

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

Respectfu lly,
Ron Canar io
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: MORMAN GAIL
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:36 PM
To: Flores, Michelle
Cc: Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy; Morman Tom
Subject: Questions regarding 1212 S Winchester
Attachments: 2020.06.29_Neighborhood Issues & Requests made to Vice Mayor Jones.pages

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed

[External Email]

Dear Michelle,

Can you please help us with the questions we have regarding the hotel project at 1212 S Winchester? See attached.

Many thanks,
Gail Morman

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

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Hi Tom,
Randy Johnson
Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:54 AM
Tom Morman; Flores, M ichelle
Gail Morman ; Jessica Kreischer
RE: [EXT] Re: Sun Power Structural Concerns
Did you mean to send this ema il to M ichele Clemente?
Randy Johnson I Sr. Energy Consultant I Sun Power Direct SUN POWER®
From: Tom Morman >
Sent: Wednesday , February 5, 2020 10:52 AM
To: Michelle Flores <michelle. [email protected] >
>; Jessica Kreischer
Randy Johnson
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: Sun Power Structu ral Concerns
Dear Michelle ,
Thank you for sending the revised packet. It would help if the engineering dept can clarify:

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

2. Is there any issue with the structure supporting the weight of the solar panels equipment?

I appreciate your help with this.

Regards,
Tom Morman

On Tue, F
eb 4, 2020 at 3:31 PM Randy Johnson < > wrote:

Thanks Michele!

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

Best,

Randy Johnson | Sr. Energy Consultant | SunPower Direct | |

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

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

SUN POWER®

Thank you,

Michele Clemente
SPRI Project Manager |

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

Hi Michele

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

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

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

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

Many thanks
Tom

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:29 AM Michele Clemente > wrote:

SUNP WER.

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

Thank you,

Michele Clemente
SPRI Project Manager |

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

Hi Michelle,

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

Many thanks,
Tom Morman

SUNP WER
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:56 AM Randy Johnson < > wrote:

Hi Michele,

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

Best,

Randy Johnson | Sr. Energy Consultant | SunPower Direct |

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

Was this done after our site survey?

Michele Clemente
SPRI Project Manager |

SUN POWER®

SUNP WER

From: Tom Morman
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Michele Clemente >
Cc: Randy Johnson >
Subject: [EXT] Re: SunPower Structural Concerns

Dear Michele,

Thanks you for following up with me. I am attaching a sketch of where the second story roof is in relation to the exterior walls that were removed when we pushed out the back of
our house. A lam beam was installed in place of the east wall (rear wall). I marked the areas where the 2 exterior walls were removed.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Tom Morman

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:06 AM Michele Clemente < > wrote:

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

Thank you,

Michele Clemente | SPRI Project Manager

--
Tom Morman

--
Tom Morman

--
Tom Morman

SU N P WER
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Hi Tom,
Kohl, Cassidy
Tuesday, December 17, 2019 3:50 PM
Tom Morman
Flores, M ichelle
RE: 1212 S winchester
Follow up
Completed
Yes, confirm ing that it appears there wou ld be a 20 foot setback on all sides. I am loop ing in M ichelle who may be able to better assist w ith more techn ical Planning quest ions.

Cassidy Kohl
Council Policy and Legislative Director
Office of Vice Mayor Chappie Jones
San Jose City Councilmember, District 1
San Jose City Hall I 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 408-535-4914
www. sjdistrict1.com
m 0 o
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 12:46 PM
To: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >
Subject: Re: 1212 S winchester
I [External Email]
Hi Cassidy,
Sorry to hear you had a cold. Not fun at this time of year. Hope you are feeling better.

Many thank s for this information.
--Can you clarify whether keeping the setbacks for the
businesses between Payne and 1212 & 1224 S Winche ster will be considered in order to provide for adequate parking , bike lanes, additional lane for traffic or potential for light rail? Currently Winchester narrows after at 1212 S Winchester due to the residential properties, resulting in a loss of a traffic lane. Once you pass the 2 blocks of residential single family homes, the street widens again. Is there a plan for how wide Winchester will be to accommodate traffic, public
transportation, bike lanes, etc?

Based on the information you sent, can you clarify if this is saying that the setbacks on all sides are 20ft setbacks?

--"Buildings that are less than 65 feet high can use a 20 foot rear/side setback when located adjacent to Residential
Neighborhood..." "All new development shall provide a 20 foot sidewalk fronting Winchester..."

Thank you for your help on this, Cassidy...

Tom

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

Hi Tom,

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

Here are the setback requirements:

Please see below for the stepback requirements.

--
Cassidy Kohl
Council Policy and Legislative Director
las rL
,---------------------------- ,~,,
I -~., ,,
'1 ,t~,.¢-=====~ .o ,, .... , [ss rs ___________________ t'='========= I
~I
I>-•
bl
35 ft. Maximum Heigh{ 1, JS fL
--------:---------1. -----------
1 I
I
- S-2Slt.

Side/Re3r
Setback
-· I
•C====f=.======== I
I
I
I
•¢====!= ======= = I
Slde/1\~r r~-tb-,c-k --~ I
i.------- 60rL~
Within 60 feet of side o,. rear propcrtr line.
buiklin& h'f.&:ht limit shall be equal to the
he,lght limit of the adjacent residenda.l district.

COMMERCIAL 8Vll.l)lr-(<; SHOWN;
HEIGtiT LIMIT ALLOWS GREATtR

NUMBER OF STORIES IN A RESIDENTIAL
OR RESIDENTIAL MIXED,USE 8UII.OING
The building height diagrams depicted on this page are scenarios of a parcel with a maximum 85-foot height. Buildings that are less than 65 feet high can use a 20-foot rear/side setback when located adjacent to Residential Neighborhood or Urban Residential Land Use Designation.

The rule for buildings within 60 feet of property line does not apply to the buildings equal or less than 65 feet (The 45-degree daylight rule applies).

All new development shall provide a 20 foot sidewalk fronting Winchester and a 12-15 foot fronting all other streets. The setbacks in the Table 5-1 can be used when this sidewalk width is Provided.

Office of Vice Mayor Chappie Jones
San Jose City Councilmember, District 1
San Jose City Hall I200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 408-535-4914
www.sjdistrict1.com
1 m am
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Jones, Chappie
Tuesday, June 15, 202111:12 AM
Barbara & Rudy Slankauskas
Maira .Blanco@sanjoseca .gov; Alec.At ienza@sanjoseca .gov; Flores, M ichelle; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Re: 1212-1224 S. W inchester Boulevard Hotel Project (C19-031 & SP20-016) Thank you Rudy for prov iding your concerns . I copied Cassidy, from my team, on this email. She can make sure your concerns are communicated to the city's planning department as well.

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

I [External Email]
To all Involved in approving this project ,
>
This project is poorly conceived . Clearly the parking and traffic increases have been downplayed and miscalculated by the developers. It is hard to understand why the developers are set on this obviously inadequate location. This is not a NIMBY complaint as we welcome wel l planned develop ment in our area. There are many other suitab le locations on Winchester Blvd.

I am very concerned with the impact the increased traffic will pose to the safety of children going to and from nearby Castlemont elementary school and on their way through the neighbo rhood to Monroe Midd le School. The obvious lack of adequate parking w ill lead to cars parking on local streets and will lead to increased tra ffic on neighboring streets increasing the danger to students passing to and from school as well as all residents in the area. Please reject this development in its current location .

Sincere ly, Rudy Slankauskas
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Dear Michelle ,

MORMAN GAIL
Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:15 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy; Morman Tom
Re: A question regarding the size of parcels fo r 1212-122 4 S Winchester Thank you for clarifying that the legal description shows the lot lines extending into Winchester Blvd.

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: MORMAN GAIL
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 10:30 PM
To: Flores
, Michelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, Chappie <[email protected]>; Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected]>; Morman Tom
Subject: A question regarding the size of parcels for 1212-1 224 S Winchester

[External Email]

Dear Michelle,

Regarding file number AT19-043, Lot Line Adjustment, description shows the combination of the two parcels to be 0.86 gross acre. Everything else, including the parcel map dimensions and the owner project information show 0.69 gross acre. Would you please confirm if 0.86 gross acre is a mistake. If so, can that please be corrected? If 0.86 gross acre is correct, please have the survey show how that was calculated. We want to be sure that the correct property size is used in the request for a lot line adjustment.

Thank you,
Gail

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

This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

I [External Email]
Hi Michelle,
Tom Morman >
Tuesday, June 9, 2020 9:42 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Gail Morman ; Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Re: Addit iona l quest ions on 1212 S Winchester project Follow up
Completed
Thank you for this update . It is diffi cult to understand the sket ch wit hout know ing th e poin ts of r eference.

For exampl e, your last email showe d a photo of the area betwee n 1212 and 1250 S Win chest er at t he point where Win chest er loses a lane. The curb in fron t of 1212 S Win chest er extends 16' out from the curb along 1250 S Winchester.

Is Winchester Blvd being wid ened t he 16' so that it aligns with th e road to the south or does it cont inue to narro w at t his poin t going nort h? If you can explain how t hat is reflecte d in the diagram, t hat would be helpful.

Many t hanks,
Tom
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:28 AM Flores, Miche lle <[email protected] > wrote :

Hi Tom,
The applicant prov ided an exhibit for W inchester Blvd. Please see attached .

Kind regards,
Mic helle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street. 3rd floor
http://www .sanioseca.gov/planning

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

Hi Tom,

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

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

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

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

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

5. I will ask the applicant.

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

Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner | Planning Division | City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor

I
http://www .sanjoseca.gov/planning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Tuesday , June 2, 2020 5:50 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <michelle.flo [email protected] >
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >; Jones , Chappie <Chapp [email protected] >; Gail Morman •-----■ >
Subject: Additional questions on 1212 S Winches te r project I [External Email]
Hi Michelle ,
Thank you for your email. Could you please clarify the
following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many thanks, Michelle.

Tom

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

Hi Tom,

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

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

I
Per the zoning code, elevator shafts, stairwells, accessible bathrooms , roof canop ies, mechanical equipment , screen ing and safety guard rails may exceed the zoning distr ict height lim itat ion by up to 17 feet if the maximum roof area coverage does not exceed 30% of the tota l roof area and the mechan ical equ ipment and appurtenances are requ ired for the operation and maintenance of the build ing.

Kind regards,
M ichelle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floo r
http://www.sanjoseca .gov/plann ing
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Wednesday , May 20, 2020 6:39 PM
>
To: Flores, M ichelle <[email protected] >
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <Cassidy.Kohl@sanjoseca .gov>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] >; Gail Morman >
Subject: Re: Quest ion re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l I [External Email]
Dear Michelle,
Thank you very much for clarifying the lot size and for sending the survey.

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

FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" {first floor: 31'-0")
Are the side and rear setbacks deducted from the lot size in calculating the FAR?
Also, from the photos in the owner plans, it does not appear that Winchester is being widened, but will continue to narrow at
1212 S Winchester. It also appears from the digitalized photo that the "Loading Space" and "Drop-Off" areas are along the street in front of the hotel further narrowing traffic when vehicles are there. Is this correct?

Also regarding the height, the height of the building was lowered by 5 inches in order to obtain a 20' rear setback instead of a 40' setback. However, there are to be at least 3 sizeable structures or enclosures extending well above the roof. Does these exceed the 65' height?

Again, many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

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

Hi Tom,

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

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

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

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

From: Flores, M ichelle
Sent: Monday , May 11, 2020 5:15 PM
To: 'Tom Morman '
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >; Jones, Chappie <Chappie.Jones@sanjoseca .gov> Subject: RE: Quest ion re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel Hi Tom,
The calculation for the lot size w ithout the streets and sidewalk was prov ided by the applicant . I w ill share your calculations w ith the applicant and have him prov ide the exact dimens ions of the lot he used in his calculation. I believe the applicant used exact measurements so that 's why the calculation he prov ided is different than the one in your email.

Kind regards,
M ichelle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street. 3rd floo r
http ://www .sanjoseca.gov/planning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Flores, M ichelle <michelle .flores@sanjoseca .gov> Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >; Jones, Chappie <Chappie.Jones@sanjoseca .gov>; Gail Morman
Subject: Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l [External Email]
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for getting back to me on this.

Can you please check my math:

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

Tom
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:54 AM Flores, M ichelle <michelle [email protected] > wrote:

Hi Tom,
I updated the project description online. The first subm itta l was for 118,528 square feet . The project description in the second subm itta l was revised to 107,079 .9 square feet . The floor area used for the FAR calculation is 86,548.5 square feet . The below -ground garage is not counted towards the FAR calculation. The size of the lot w ithout the streets and sidewa lks is 24,547.77 square feet .

Kind regards,
Miche lle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www .sanjoseca.gov/p lanning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Wednesday , May 6, 2020 8:08 PM
To: Flores, Miche lle <michelle.flo [email protected] > Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <Cassidy.Kohl@sanjoseca .gov>; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] > Subject: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l [Externa l Email]
Dear Michelle,
Can you please help me with how the Floor Area Ratio {FAR) of 3.5 is being determined for the parcels at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd for the proposed hotel?

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

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

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

Regards,
I Tom Morman
Tom Morman
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Jones, Chappie
Sunday, June 14, 2020 5:06 PM
Seshadri Sathyanarayan
Flores, M ichelle; Kohl, Cassidy; Tom Morman
Subject: Re: Concerns about 1212 S Winchester Blvd hotel proposa l Seshadri,
Thank you for keeping me in the loop on these commun ications . We are hearing the input from the commun ity. Cassidy w ill send out updates on any new developments w ith the project .

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chapp ie
Charle s "Chapp ie" Jones
Vice Mayo r, City of San Jose - Counci l District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www .sjd istr ictl .com
On Jun 14, 2020, at 12:30 PM, Seshadri Sathyanarayan
I [External Email]
Hi Michelle (cc: Vice Mayor Jones),
I am resident of Wood lawn Ave near Payne.
> wrote :

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

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

In addition, I am also concerned about the use of Woodlawn, Castlemont and other side streets as a main road by traffic that gets diverted from Winchester due to construct ion or parking restrictions associated with the new structure. Vice Mayor Chappie might recall the walk we did with him of these streets about a year ago, highlighting the speeding, parking issues.

We are very concerned that these will only get worse with such a large commercial project going up in such close proximity to what is otherwise a very quiet resident ial neighborhood - has been that way for over 50 years now! And we love living here because of it.

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

Thanks
-Sesh
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from unt rusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Dear Michelle,
Tom Morman >
Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:36 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Gail Morman; Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Re: fo llow up questions on 1212-1224 S Winchester
Thank you very much for getting back to me with
the information and the appeal form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom & Gail Morman
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:15 PM Flores, Miche lle <[email protected] > wrote:

Hi Tom,
I'm wait ing on the applicant to update the plan set to confirm, but based on the informat ion they provided , the stairwe ll wou ld be the on ly rooftop equ ipment and it wou ld be less than 10 feet high. I have asked the app licant to provide loading space information and am wait ing on the ir updated plan set. We are asking them to clar ify the employees .

Please see the link below for the form:
https ://www .sa n joseca .gov /home/showdocument ?id= 15363 Kind regard s,
Mic helle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www .sanjoseca.gov/planning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:50 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <michelle .flo [email protected] > Cc: Gail Morman ■■■■■■■■->; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] >; Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >
Subject: Re: follow up quest ions on 1212 -1224 S Winchester I [External Email]

Hi Michelle,

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

Many thanks,
Tom

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:39 PM Tom Morman > wrote:

Dear Michelle,

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

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

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

3. Are you going to require that the Owner provide what you outlined in your letter of 10/9/19: "Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use."

One other thing, you were helpful in sending me the appeal application form and I cannot find it. Could you please resend it to me and let me know again the fee to file an appeal?

Thank you, Michelle.

Tom

Tom Morman
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Jones, Chappie
Tuesday, June 15, 202111:15 AM
Marlene J Schwilk
Subject:

Blanco, Ma ira; Atienza, Manue l; Flores, M ichelle; Kohl, Cassidy Re: proposed 1212-1224 Winchester Hote l
Thank you Mar lene for prov iding your concerns. I copied Cassidy, from my team , on th is email. She can make sure your concerns a re communicated to the city's planning department as well.

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chappie
Charles "Chappie" Jones
Vice Mayo r, City of San Jose - Council District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www.sjdistr ictl .com
On Jun 15, 2021, at 9:41 AM, Ma rlene J Schwilk
I [External Email]
To All Concerned :
> wrote:

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

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

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

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Dear Michelle ,
Tom Morman
Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:39 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie; Gail Morman
Re: Question re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hotel
Thank you very much for clarifying the lot size and for sending the survey.

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

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

Again, many thanks for your help, Michelle.

Regards,
Tom Morman

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

Hi Tom,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Tom,

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

I
Kind regards,
Michelle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floor
http://www .san joseca.gov/planning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Thursday , May 7, 2020 12:42 PM
To: Flores, Michelle <michelle.flo [email protected] >
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >; Jones, Chapp ie <Chapp [email protected] >; Gail Morman
Subject: Re: Quest ion re FAR calculation for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester for proposed hote l I [External Email]
Hi Michelle ,
Thank you for getting back to me on this.

Can you please check my math:

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

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

Hi Tom,
I updated the project description on line. The first subm itta l was for 118,528 square feet . The project description in the second subm itta l was revised to 107,079 .9 square feet . The floor area used for the FAR calculation is 86,548.5 square feet . The below-ground garage is not counted towards the FAR calculation. The size of the lot w ithout the streets and sidewa lks is 24,547.77 square feet .

Kind regards,
M ichelle Flores
Planner I Planning Division I City of San Jose
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd floo r
http://www.sanjoseca .gov/pla nning
From: Tom Morman
Sent: Wednesday , May 6, 2020 8:08 PM
>
To: Flores, M ichelle <[email protected] >
Cc: Kohl, Cassidy <[email protected] >; Jones, Chappie <[email protected] > Subject: Quest ion re FAR calculation fo r 1212 & 1224 S Winchester fo r proposed hote l [External Email]
Dear Michelle,
Can you please help me with how the Floor Area Ratio {FAR) of 3.5 is being determined for the parcels at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester Blvd for the proposed hotel?

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

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

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

Regards,
Tom Morman
Tom Morman
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Jones, Chappie
Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:57 AM
Seshadri Sathyanarayan
Flores, M ichelle; Tom Morman;
; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Re: Winchester Urban Village plans and neighborhood quality concerns Thank you Seshadri. I also included Cassidy, on my team, on this message.

Stay Safe and Healthy,
Chapp ie
Charles "Chapp ie" Jones
Vice Mayo r, City of San Jose - Counci l District 1
San Jose City Hall - 200 E. Santa Clara St., 18th Floor San Jose, Calif. 95113
(408) 535-4901
www .sjd istr ictl .com
On Aug 6, 2020, at 8:24 AM, Seshadri Sathyanarayan
I [External Email]
Hi Vice-Mayor Jones ,
wrote:

Apologies for not being able to attend the call yesterday. I wanted to write and convey some additional thoughts with regard to the hotel project at 1212 S Winchester blvd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We truly appreciate your patience in listening to our concerns, and continued support with helping us coord inate these activities.

Best regards ,
Seshadri
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

I [External Email]
Tom Morman
Monday, January 6, 2020 11:50 PM
Flores, M ichelle; Kohl, Cassidy
RE Update on proposa l for 1212 & 1224 S Wincheste r
Follow up
Completed
Hi Michelle and Cassidy,
I wanted to check in to see if there have been any
developments on the proposal for 1212 & 1224 S Winchester.

Also can you help me with the following:
1) Is there a mistake on the permit for the Lot Line Adjustment under "Description" , to combine "two parcels into one on an approximately 0.86 gross acre site"? The parcel map shows the total dimensions as 206 x 146 = 30,076 or 0.69 ac. Everywhere else on the permit it is listed as approximately 0.69 gross acre site.
2) Will any new development provide a 20 ft sidewalk fronting Winchester?
3) Is it in the plan to widen Winchester in front of 1212 & 1224 S Winchester when this is developed so that the extra lane is in place?
4) Will there be side setbacks for any development here? The adjacent property at 1204 S Winchester appears to be
residential use. Doesn't this require a setback?
Many thanks for your help.

Regards,
Tom Morman
Tom Morman
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attac hments from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Mabel Cheng
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 2:31 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Jones, Chappie; Kohl, Cassidy
Regarding the Hote l Proposal on 1212 and 1214 S. Winchester AVE near San Jose-Campbell border.

To Whom It May Concern,
I am a resident in the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed 1212 S Winchester Boulevard hotel development. I, like many of my neighbors, am strongly opposed to the Hotel proposal for the following reasons:

1. As proposed in the development plan, a shadow will be cast on all adjacent houses after 2 pm year round.

2. Windows/balconies at the rear end of the hotel will look directly into the private backyards of neighboring residential homes, which invades our privacy .

3. From what I understand , the proposed 15ft sidewalk extension moves the building closer to the residential property lines making the building more of an obstruction of our view/ the airspace.

Thus, I fear the value of our real estate and home environment will be negatively affected. As a long time resident of this neighborhood , I please ask that you consider the above aforementioned items as well as the impact of additional traffic to an already heavily congested street, especially during Bethel Church's Sunday services (1201 S.

Winchester Blvd).

Best regards,
Mabel Cheng
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attac hment s from untrusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Dear Michelle ,
Tom Morm an
Saturday , Apr il 11, 2020 2:34 PM
Flores, M ichelle
Kohl, Cassidy; Jones, Chappie
Request update on hote l pro posal at 1212 & 1224 S Winchester As you suggested, I wanted to check back on the status of the traffic report for this project.

Can you give me as update on the following?

1. Status of the traffic report. If completed , can you please send it to me?

2. Has the applicant resubmitted revised set of plans?

3. Are there any other developments to the plans for these parcels?
Many thanks for your help, Michelle.

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

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:
miyuki one bear
Monday, August 10, 2020 2:26 PM
Flores, M ichelle; Blanco, M aira
Jones, Chappie; Hughey, Rosalynn; Kohl, Cassidy
Subject: Subject Line: Comments for 1212 - 1224 S Winchester Blvd, C19-031 & H19- 038; SP20-016;
I [External Email]
Hello,
As of today I do not see any progress regarding the requested data documents from the developer so we as a neighborhood can make an informed decision on what is actually being planned for th is space. As a very concerned parent, I represent the moms of th is neighborhood (with kids ageing in range from toddlers to teens). We very concerned about the impact on safety in our neighborhood with trans ient visitor and staff accessing our streets to find parking (if there wi ll not be adequate park ing on the site ), circling back to the hote l if they miss the entrance causing more speed ing and traff ic on our already impacted streets , especia lly Cast lemont , noise issues with a bar/restaurant, privacy issues with transient hotel guests and staff being able to see into backyards on Red Oaks and fire safety issues with lack of accessible fire lanes.

Please review the below and let me know when we can see some of the developer's responses , if any.
1) Traffic
We need a Traffic Report with a Transportation Demand Management plan included.

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

A hotel with 119 rooms, stacked parking, employees, deliverie s, service needs, Uber/ Lyft transportation will increase traffic. We already have an impacted street with an elementary school around the corner. In addition, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for children walking to school and for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the propo sed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We feel this is inappropriate location for a 6-story hotel. It burdens, rather t
han serves the community.

2) Number of Employees
We request an independent review of the Owner’s estimated number of emplo
yees. We suspect that the Owner’s estimate of 10 employees is understated. An on-line search for estimates for a hotel with 119 room s shows a range of 95 employees (for a 3-star hotel) to 238 employees for a 5-star hotel. (Between 8 to 20 employees per 10 rooms). The owner’s estimate does not include employees for the restaurant area and kitchen, security, parking including TDM (traffic demand management plan), guest luggage storage, 2 office rooms, employees break room, men’s locker room, women’s locker room, jacuzzi, steam room, laundry, fire pump room, fire control room, electrical room, landscape, grounds, plumbing. Per The Planning Dept Review Letter to Owner, 10/9/19: “Confirm if the number of employees is for all uses and not just the hotel. Provide details for the operation of the coffee shop, restaurant, offices, and ballroom. Provide the hours of operation as well as identify the number of employees for each use.” We have not been informed of a reply from the Owner and request this. A higher number of employees would mean more parking spaces are needed to ensure there is not inappropriate overflow into the neighborhood.If this hotel is understaffed, other concerns arise such as quality, safety and security.

3) Parking
The Owner is requesting a 48% parking reduction, providing 66 spaces out of 129.

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

4) Fire Plan
We r
emember the 2002 Santana Row fire which caused more than $100 Milli
on in damage. My daughter, 11 years old at the time, remembers walking with friends in the neighborhood and wondering if it was raining as ashes were coming down from the fire more than 1 mile away. We request a thorough Fire Plan review for the safety of our community. This 6 story hotel is 20’ from neighboring homes. The Lynhaven Apts are 60’ from the rear fence. A fired in this hotel could be a deadly devastation to the nei
ghborhood. We see marked fire lanes on the new Lynhaven Apts as well as the old neighboring A Grace Subacute. A 2015 OSHA publication stated:
““The options available for attacking a fire increase when a building’s perimeter becomes more accessible to fire apparatus.” We request marked fire lanes in the proposed plan. Currently, there is no room for side or rear fire apparatus access lanes based on the hotel project. We request The Fir
e Dept Review be done before the project advances. If this project poses an unreasonable fire risk to the neighborhood, we do not feel it is reasonable for the City to allow this project to move forward.

5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment
Add who this letter is from/to (Review Letter from City to Owner? - its not
clear)
R
eview Letter 10/9/19: “The proposed project (hotel) is prelim
inarily inconsistent with the following goals/policies: Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy 3-20: New development should support and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment and provide greater connectivity to the overall network.”
The proposed sidewalk area does not appear to enhance a pedestrian friendl
y area. Rather it would have several paths cutting across from the street to hotel for guests checking in, for cars entering the parking garage and possibly for deliveries, garbagetrucks, and service vehicles. Where else are they able to park? Bicycles will have to navigate the cars and trucks moving in and out of the garage to the street, as well as those along the curb for check in who then need to circle back to the parking lot. And what will this do to the “Potential Mid-Block Crossing” (Urban Village Figure 4.1 & 5.) designed for this location? This project still appears inconsistent with the Pedestrian/Bicycle Friendly Environment Policy. We request a response from Owner of how this project will comply with this policy and make adjustments to ensure ability to comply before moving forward.

6) Off-Street Loading Space
The Off-Street Loading Space is not labeled. (Fro
m City to Owner?) Review
Letter 10/
9/19: “Pursuant to Section 20.70.440, hotels with greater than 100,000 gross floor area shall provide one off-street loading space. Section

20.90.420 r
equires loading spaces to be a minimum of 10 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 15 feet in height. Label the location of the loading space on the floor
plan.” (Owner Plan, A.02, Total Floor Area = 107,079.9 sq ft; Owner Plan,
C5.0, Fire Layout = Fire General Notes = 107,079.9 sq ft) The Off- Street L
oading Space needs to be labeled. Request response from Owner.

7) Drop Off” zones
There are drop off zones in front of the hotel and at the entrance of the under
ground parking. (Owner Plan, A.08) This seems to violate the Urban
Village Policy 6-23: “New developments should include drop- off/pick-up areas in site plans, while ensuring that walking, biking, and transit remain safe and convenient.” And Policy 6-24: “Ensure that drop- off/pi
ck-up areas do not conflict with bicycle lanes.” And Policy 6-45:
“Reduce
the number of driveways along Winchester Boulevard to
enhance safety for people who walk and people who bike and improve streetscape character.” This seems the most egregious violation – a single drivew
ay for 66 - 214 parking spaces entering and leaving the garage around the clock does not provide for a safe walking, biking environment. Also it is hard to imagine how a flow of cars and trucks pa
rking, waiting, circling in front of the hotel can be safe or convenient for pedestrians and bicycles or be with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. In additio
n, we are concerned this could raise a safety issue for ambulances needing to get to the Convalescent Hospital next door to the proposed hotel. There are frequently emergencies as this is an elderly, ill population and ambulances need to get quickly in and out. We request a review of the appropriateness of proposed drop off zones.

8) P
rivacy/Safety - Height reduced 5” to achieve a 20’ Rear Setback The Owne
r adjusted the height of the proposed 6 story, 65’ hotel by 5 inches to
go from a required 40ft setback to a 20’ setback. However, Roof top structures exceed 65’.

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

We previously requested an explanation as to whether a 5” drop in height to avoi
d the 40’ setback violates the intent of the regulation; whether roof top structures exceeding 65’ mandate a 40’ setback; whether a sidewalk and bench are permitted in the setback area; whether there are mandated regulations regarding hours, smoking, etc at the rear of the hotel to protect the privacy neighbors?
Received reply: “The Winchester Urban Village Plan Design Standard DS-11 states ‘non-occupiable architectural features such as roof forms, chimneys, stairwells and towers may project up to ten feet above the maximum height’. The 65 feet is for the building height and focusing on the massing. I will share these concerns about open space with the applicant in their revised plan sets.”
We request to know How ta
ll are the structures on top of the roof?
We feel this reduction to a 20 ft setback violates the purpose of the setback requirement, for privacy and safety of the surrounding neighbors. We request there be a review and consideration to require at least a 40’ setback. We request that employee staff and residents not be allowed in this setback space out of privacy and safety for the residential next door neighbors.

9) No documents have been posted on the Permit site. We request Planning Dept post all documents.

Regards ,
Miyuki One Bear
&
Jame s Yamane
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from unt rusted sources.

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

I [External Email]
Hello Michell;
michael roden
Tuesday, August 11, 2020 7:44 AM
Flores, M ichelle
Thoughts on last evening's virt ual meet ing
I would like to add some comments to the inputs received during last evening's virtual meeting.

I am a long time resident of this neighborhood , residing on Greenbriar ave for 34 yrs.

In that time the traffic has increased tremendously, with people using the neighborhood streets as a thruway from Hamilton ave. over to Winchester blvd. The intersection at Payne and Winchester is especially congested in the morning and evening commute hours.

I have witnessed many near accidents between cars and pedest rians at this intersection. Also, have seen several children almost being
run over when walking to Castlemont elementary school. For the city to add a hotel at this location, would only aid in increased congest ion. The feeling I got from the advisory speaker was one of not really concerned with the living conditions brought on
to the neighborhood residents. But, his main concern being the completion of the hotel for profit. It does seem like a more thorough study needs to be addressed by the city on the overa ll neighborhood impact.

A quest ion was also posed about the affect this hotel would have on the neighborhood property values.

The respondent did not
have an adequate answer. I feel the respondent should been prepared to provide this information or a property tax representa tive should have been present. Knowing how the neighborhood property value is affected is or great concerns to the home owners in this neighborhood.

At this point, I am opposed to the idea being built at this location. As on of the participants pointed out, there are a vast number of
empty building along the Central express way corridor which would be better suited for a hotel, than located one so close to
a residential neighborhood.

Regards ,
Michael Roden
This message is from outs ide the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
• WINCHESTER HOTEL •
1224&1212 ,S.WINCHESTER BLVD., SAN JOSE, CA 95128

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARCHITECTURAL
A.00 COVER SHEET
A.01 TITLE SHEET
A.02 PROJECT INFORMATION
A.03 SITE PLAN
A.04 VICINITY MAP
A.05 SITE PHOTOS
A.06 BASEMENT(-1) FLOOR PLAN
A.07 PARKING RAMP PLAN
A.08 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A.09 2ND FLOOR PLAN
A.10 3RD FLOOR PLAN
A.11 4TH FLOOR PLAN
A.12 5TH FLOOR PLAN
A.13 6TH FLOOR PLAN
A.14 ROOF PLAN
A.15 BUILDING SECTION A-A
A.16 BUILDING SECTION B-B
A.17 BUILDING ELEVATION (FRONT)
A.18 BUILDING ELEVATION (LEFT)
A.19 BUILDING ELEVATION (REAR)
A.20 BUILDING ELEVATION (RIGHT)
A.21 MATERIAL BOARD
A.22 BUILDING RENDERING
A.23 BUILDING RENDERING
A.24 BUILDING RENDERING
A.25 BUILDING RENDERING
A.26 BIRD VIEW RENDERING
A.27 BIRD VIEW RENDERING
A.28 SHADOW STUDY
A.29 SHADOW STUDY
A.30 TRANSPARENCY STUDY
SURVEY
S.01 SURVEY PLAN

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
L.01 FIRST FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.02 FIRST FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.03 SITE IMAGERY
L.04 PLANTING IMAGERY
L.05 TREE MITIGATION

CIVIL ENGINEERING
C1 .0 TITLE SHEET
C2.0 DEMOLITION PLAN
C3.0 GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN
C3.1 SECTION & DETAILS
C4.0 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
C4.1 STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS
C4.2 MEDIA FILTRATION DETAILS
C5.0 FIRE LAYOUT
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:•J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z

COVER SHEET
A.00
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
OWNER:

ADAM ASKARI
2881 HEMLOCK AVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95128
E-MAIL : [email protected]
408-921-1882
APPLICANT:

HENRY CORD

CORD ASSOCIATES

REAL ESTATE SERVICES
CA BROKER LIC. 01176923
401 FIELDCREST DRIVE, SAN JOSE, CA 95123
408-283-7292
408-307-0166
DESIGNER:

SAM MONFARED MASOUMI
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL -CA 92677
E-MAIL: [email protected]
310-795-4009
949-553-0548
SURVEY ENGINEER :

MKessler & ASSOCIATES
ONE VENTURE SUITE 130,
IRVINE, CA 92618
949-339-5330
CIVIL ENGINEER:

JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
CONTACT : Dj Edwards. PE. QSD
E-MAIL : [email protected]
PH 408-790-4982
LANDSCAPE ENGINEER :

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR.

BEVERLY HILLS -CA 90210
E-MAIL: [email protected]
PH : (650) 492-3249
SITE
•
I
SCALE: 1 "=500'
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
I_ I
SCALE: 1"=500'

TITLE SHEET
A.01
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
OWNER:------------­
PROJECT ADDRESS : ----------
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. :

BUILDING CLASSIFICATION: -------­
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : -------­
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:

BUILDING HEIGHT :

LOT SIZE:

GOVERNMENT BODY :

OCCUPANCY GROUP :

ADAM ASKARI
1224&1212 S.WINCHESTER BLVD. ,
SAN JOSE, CA 95128
279-17-020 & 279-17-021
HOTEL
Type I-A & Ill-A
Urban Village
64'-7
11 30,074.52 SQ. FT.

CITY OF SAN JOSE
R1

PARKING TABLE -WINCHESTER HOTEL

SETBACK TABULATION PARKING TABULATION SPACE
FRONT SETBACK 26'-0" (first floor: 31 '-0") UNDERGROUND PARKING LEVEL (SINGLE) 8 SIDE YARD SETBACK 6'-0" UNDERGROUND PARKING LEVEL (DOUBLE) 29 SIDE YARD SETBACK 6'-0"
REAR SETBACK 20'-0"
TOTAL 66

ROOM MATRIX
~

KING ACCESSIBLE KING QUEEN ACCESSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDROOM SUITE TOTAL F
BASEMENT FLOOR -1 PARKING ------
1st FLOOR LOBBY
10 1
---
11 HOTEROOM
2nd FLOOR COMMON AREA
10 1 6 1
-
18 HOTEL ROOMS
3rd FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 22 -3 -2 27
41h FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 15 1 3 1 3 23
5th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 13 1 1 -6 22
6th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 15 1 1 -2 19
TOTAL 85 5 14 2 13 119
PERCENT 75.6% 13.4% 10.9% 100%

FLOOR AREA TABLE

TYPE OF

FLOORS FLOOR USE CONSTRUCTION FLOOR AREA
BASEMENT FLOOR -1 PARKING &UTILITY ROOMS Type I-A 20531.4 sq.ft. 1st FLOOR LOBBY & COFFEE SOOP& OFFICE& RECEPTION+ 1-K)TEL A<X)MS & SECURITY & LAUNDRY Type I-A 15512.9 sq.ft. 2nd FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS& RESTAURANT/COFFEE SHOP
Type Ill-A 15282.3 sq.ft. +GYM/STEAM ROOM & JACUZZI
3rd FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS Type Ill-A 16062.3 sq.ft.
4th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS Type Ill-A 16062.3 sq.ft.
5th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS Type Ill-A 12657.9 sq.ft.
61h FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS Type Ill-A 10970.8 sq.ft.

TOTAL 107079.9 sq.ft.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to develop an 6-story hotel (up to a height of 64'7" feet) with up to 119 guestrooms.

The first floor would contain the main lobby reception area, guest luggage storage, coffee station and bar area, 2 office rooms , accounting, management, employees break room, men locker room, women locker room,fire control room, laundry, security, fire pomp room, electrical room, and 11 guest rooms.

Common outdoor areas for hotel guests are proposed to be located on 2nd floor that contain gym and lockers, jacuzzi, steam room, restaurant area and kitchen.
18 guest rooms would also be located on 2nd floor.

Floors 3 through 6 would contain guest rooms that would range from approximately 270 to 770 square feet in size.

A total of 66 parking spaces are provided.

Parking is provided by one underground parking level which is using double parking system , which will be supported by a TOM plan.

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

BICYCLE & MOTORCYCLE TABLE -WINCHESTER HOTEL PARKING TABLE -WINCHESTER HOTEL RATIO

RATIO REQUIRED
HOTEL ROOMS 119 ROOMS 1 PER ROOM
HOTEL ROOMS BICYCLE 1 PER 10 ROOMS 12 SPACES
1 PER 10 EMPLOYEES 1 SPACE
EMPLOYEES BICYCLE EMPLOYEES 10 EMPLOYEES 1 PER 1 EMPLOYEE & OFFICE & OFFICE
MOTORCYCLE 1 PER 20 CODE REQUIRED 7 SPACES TOTAL PROJECT REQUIREMENT TOTAL PROJECT REQUIREMENT 13 SPACES HICYCLE
7 SPACES MOTORCYCLE PARKING PROVIDED
37 SPACES HICYCLE
PROVIDED 8 SPACES MOTORCYCLE PARKING REDUCTION
REQUESTED TDM REDUCTION 0% REQUESTED TDM REDUCTION

REQUIRED
119 SPACES
10 SPACES
129 SPACES
66 63

48.0 %
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. HEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
maillo:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z

PROJECT

INFORMATION &
TABLES
A.02
\0
,....;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
'-6"

SID SETBA K

I RESIDENTIAL I
. 11-+---11-=.i'mmr.rrcllll i
:i 11oli11i

PROPERTY LINE
206'-6"
1 gs'-0"
I RESIDENTIAL!
-~ ------------
6-&IIIA

EST ROOMS HOTEL

VEL OF TYPE IA GARAG

WINCHESTER BLVD
-0
I
• .•. ... :,: : ... ..:~} .. -.
'
'-6"

IDES TBACK
0 IJJ l>
0 ;,;;
-< C
l> 0 JJ
0 I
(/)
!!l ,-
IJJ N l>
0 ;,;;
--------+<'' HIGH WOODEN FENCE TOP

OF CONCRETE CURB

ICOMMERCIALI
C
0 "Tl
JJ
I 0
(/) z --i 0 0 (/) m m
~
N C -i
0 Ill
l> r
I ;,;; 0 ;,;;
- --L.()
0 N
I
,-
,-
:~!~:~~I :f !i
•]~1[c1~
:c1 :{•llJ i-
: I J ~'j I :l ! ~ ~ ''~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L·l ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
-. ..

SITE PLAN
A.03
\0
,....;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)

VICINITY MAP

1. CASTLEMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • 3040 PAYNE AVE. 2. MARIJANE HAMANN PARK• 2747 WESTFIELD AVE.

3. GROCERY OUTLET BARGAIN MARKET • 3140 WILLIAMS RD. 4. BETHEL CHURCH OF SAN JOSE •1201 S WINCHESTER BLVD.

5. PACIFIC OAKS COLLEGE IN SAN JOSE • 1245 S WINCHESTER BLVD. 6. A GRACE SUBACUTE & SKILLED CARE • 1250 S WINCHESTER BLVD. :.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~

VICINITY
MAP
A.04
\0 ,...,
0 I
0 N

0...

V)
. '
:t~ , ,;· ~-
<· • , ,
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~

SITE PHOTOS
A.05
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
12 11 109 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
~
2'-0 1 /2" 206'-o" , ,
~:r
\ 1914'-6" s'-6" " ' -0 " I I I I I I I I I r- ~, ~ "
37'-2" 16'-8"
f-u
37'-o"
\
22'-8" ' -6" 27'-4" 15'-8" 31 ,. ,. \ ,.
• ' • ' ' ' ' • • •
~ -
I
----~ ------------
I I
I I
I I
- -
I I ½1 I y L J I y y y

I I I I
p~J
, ;,, I <D
I I p3
I
I <Xl 00

I I I I I I I I I I I I
11~~1
I I
I I I
I I
, I I I I I I I I
<D
"' I
---
--------------------------
P2
I
p i't
----._
<Xl ,,--
"
., I 13' O" / 9' O" ' ~ - - ~--/ ~ ISLOPE9.5'/,I
00 \ I I '
I I F.F. / I I I I I
~
I F.F. \

I I I I
I <D I
1-------,-------------
1 "' I
I
I
I
I I
I p ~,9
<Xl
I P1 ·o 00

I I I I I I I I I I I
-i----+-
- _J___
I
' I
0 I N
- ---- - -- - - -[ I:! .
µ
I
L
I
I I
I
I ' '
\__
I I I MOTORCYCLE 1
EV PARKING UTILITY ROOM I 1 [ti I AREA
"' I
' 00
I I I
p 110,117'-0"
00 0
2 [ti
I I I I p 65,66 I I 47'~4"
,-----7 I I
I I 37'-0" I ,' I
I o· s· I I
I
3 [ti I I I
I I
I I

I , V/// V///
L _____ _J
4 [ti
p :12
1 13
<D I 0 11---7
' 3•lo· ' I I I
I '
8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-0" 9'-0" g•-o· 9'-0" -a·-s· 25'-10" I 00
'" I I I
5 [ti
N
I I I
I I
I
I I I
I
I I
6 [ti
I I I I I I I I I I L _____ _JI
I I
P :1J15
I I
EV PARKIN1
,
I 7 [ti <D

I EV PARKING I
00 I I
I s 12rlx I
I I I I I p 63,64
I I
p 61,62 p 59,60 p 57,58 p 55,56
1 P 54 p 53
I
p 52 p 51 4P I I I
i) I

RM IC CLE
I
PA KIN p ,_ IER
I
'i:, I 7--_J "1//// C h r h f. / / / / F I C - - -L µ - --' --- '
/ / / /
"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I ' I I "' I "' p 49,50
I
P 116,11
I
I I
I ., I
J

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I
I I ! I I 13' O" I ~--"' I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I "' \ p 47,48 I
I F.F. I 00
P :18f 19
00 \ I ' / 0
I
"

I / ' I
0 I --..._ ___ II ______ I I ________________
1 1 __________ I ______________ I_ _,/ I I I L----
I ,-----7
"' I I ' I p 45,46
I
I I s-I I 00 I I I • I I parking p1th of egress travel .:; 100' parking path of egress travel < I cxr 1 I oo I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I hl _____ J
- - -it
/ / / ,, ,, /
- - -
i
- - - -
I:! -1
-- 'i I

I I I I I
L
HI 1/ /-;:,,r:'.} V /J 'oo
! "
L µ
' I 3' O" 2'-3" ' 0
I I I I I I I ,I i<...---8' -6" 8'-6" I f'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" g'-o" 5'-0"/ 8'-6" 8'-6"- "
I
I
I I
%~I
~ ' "-¥1 I I I I I I I I VI ~ - - -,_ -8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 5 -2 "' 75"ll1211' ;~f
IJ I 1 I I I I I I VAN PARKING
~ -t--e: -' EGRESS
~
f---f-' -
'
,I I
N,
STAIR
~
f---' , ~-0 0
I ~00 SF WORK SPACE {5' X 20')} I BOX ~ I I ,~ I I I I / EGRESS T BBY ,._ ·,.._ I I
j-.

I I
~ ~~
STAIR
"' - p 20,21 p 22,23
~~-p 26,27 p 28,29 p 30,31 p 32,33 p 34 p 35,36 p 37,38 BOX ~
p-39,40 p 41,42 p 43,44 I
-+ ~ / ~
7 - -- - --- - - --- --- - - -'" -
~
,~
µ Lµ
I ; l, I 2: PEI MEICY ;LE

I I I I I I
½'.; ~
I
~
PI\RI( NGl1-TI ;R ,, I I
- -
-tt-
- -7 - - - - -
I I
I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I ---l i _________ i __________ ii -------i _i ___________________ l i-----------i----------------i ______________ i ________ il ___ I L __________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------~ I ----------------
~MS KING ACCESSIBLE KflG
FLOO
BASB.ENTFLOOR-1 p,,,..., - -
1st FLOOR LO!lllY 10 1 HOTEROOM
200 FLOOR COUMONAAEA
10 1 HOTEL ROOMS
3n:I FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 22 -
4th FLOOA HOTEL ROOMS 15 1
5th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 13 1
6th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS 15 1
TOTAL 85 5
PERCENT 75.6%
--0
I -0
N
••
A
LC -
--"tj-
I
-I"-
N
- -B
--CXJ
I
-I"-
N
" ,__,,
I --
L() 0
I
C -u, -I -
-CD
"tj-
,;---
--"tj-
I
-I"-
N
D • - -
--"tj-
I
-
,;---
,---
• E -
'
-~ -F --0
I
-0
N
-" -0
I -
,;---
,;---
QUEEN M:C SSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDROOM SUITE
---
---
6 1 -
3 -2
3 1 3
1 -6
1 -2
14 2 13

13.4% 10.9%
TOTAL
-
11 18
27 23
22 19
119
100%
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED

BASEMENT

FLOOR PLAN
A.06
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
/
I
r
-' ± 0.00
F.F.
+164'-o

START RAMP
RAMP LENGTH = 8'-O"
26'-0" W DRIVING AISLE
SLOPE 10%
Ls·-o---+----------37'-o .. ----------+-B"-o .. ------J.

I I
I I

I I I I
--~----------------~---~7 I I
I I ~
I I en +155'-o

ENI OF RAMP
RAMP LENGTH= 37'-O"
26'-0" W DRIVING AISLE
SLOPE 20%
RAMP LENGTH = 8'-O"
26'·0" W DRIVING AISLE
SLOPE 10%
"'-
\
1 :.,!~;~~I ;J!i
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
:•J l'~ I :l!i ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

JMH WEISS, INC,
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~

PROPOSED

PARKING

RAMP PLAN
A.07
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
5'-6"
12 11
. . . . . . .......... ··········
3 I ll-ll-/i'\n,-;,---r;-n-;ft-rr;n-;--rr71 I
1 1
1 I~~ 111
!1!1 D
1 J
1 hl I I ~n'Firn'~'I I
ll--------l,----.-JFcccccl1 "11. < 75" COMMON PATH OF t_l__lE I

LAUNDRY

EMPLOYEE

BREAK ROOM
I I
I I
I 14~11
I
I
I I

ROOF UTLINE
WOME

LOCKER AQOM
0 I
;,,
MEN
LOCKER
;.,
I
;...
109
TRAVEL
-----------7 '
KING
ROOM#101
1,
o·-,r
'' "i'•
"'
4 '
: I L __ -;:-,.'9
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
s
KING
ROOM-#102
ATOR
ATOR
87 I KING
ROOM/1103
OFFICE 1
6 5
2'-0 1 /2" ~
A-1
"
KING
ROOM#104
0"

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
KING
ROOM#105
I
1 0FrlCE
. • I
;;;
I
L
7 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l----~~----32'-7"------~-----11 ;_O"
-_J
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
-H--
I I
LOBBY

RECEPTION
{CHECK-IN)
I
'
;J " ,.
"
.. • ...
.::\~.:"_()
,---------------7
I I
I I
I I

I DROP-OFF I
I I
I I
I I L _______________ J
206'-o"
22'-8"

ACCESIBLE QUEEN
AOOM-11106
0 I
;,,
N
LOBBY
?lo" 7.\
4 $
KING
ROOM#107
1 ~
'
31 '-6"
15' O"
KING
ROOM/1108
1---'1i1111111...,...------1i1....-sillli.
0 0
"Tl
"Tl
rn rn
(fJ
I
0 "'CJ
!><>
OJ
)>
:n
~--------+-10· o·-----1-■

LUGGAGE

IRE CONTROL R
EGRESS
STA.IA
BOX
:. ' 0
. ro
I
·--
M
,--------------------7
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 27'-4"
KING
ROOM#109
15• o"
Kl G
R OM#110
' J -----
2 14• o"
KING
ROOM#l1

ELECTRICAL ROOM
0'-8"

FIRE POMP ROOM

SECURITY
• •• • I •
:· -:--·:. • .. . . . .. .
1 '-o"
Cf)
co
I
I'
N
-tj-
1 I'
N
---tj-
I
,-----
,-----
0 I
0 N
0 I
L()
0 I
0 N
0 I
0 C..O
-tj-
,-----
--A
--8
--C
D
E
:~!~:~~I :1!~
•]~1[rt~
:c1 ;{•llJ :l-
~•J L'~ I :l!~ ~ ~'•

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 0
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202 □
i z
-,
~

PROPOSED

FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
A.OB
\0
,....;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
B-8
-16
1, n .rL..J7.n-f"L..Jln n 7 _n ~LJl , n
'rl-~!----•li,u~cl.....il--.~~~~i"! ~ I □ .__+---••· 0• .
t [ ! -;, QUEEN ~o·-o· /
,-._ [ ROOM#201 _ (
! I :

I
I
I
I
/1'
L 607"< 75' CC~MON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL__________ l
37' O"
' 00
I
~
24' 7" 12· 5"
KING
ROOM#217

ACCESSIBLE ING
ROOM#202 ,
~
I
~
n n""Ul -I ~L....Jl....J'
7'-J" ••
L ,I 0
v
LOCK R
s· 'o"-l.._-l----14 · -s·-----lt----s· "o·
f
I I I
I I
lJ
1 I
I I ,J
·----!"=== = = 9
GM
w
I
"
N
------j---2 ·-,·---------
LOCKER
I ____J I
:,,
I
i--
17' 7"
--- ' ', , ' , ' I I
' ' ' , ' / ___ ..,

ACCE, IBLE QUEEN
ROOM r,>03
y
0 1 ¥.. X .kt X h-g l\
I
I
-----;.-<;rl' 7·-5~~ _,_ -~ ' 0
I
-'-,-i----12'-5"---•

KITCHEN
7 I I I I I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VOID
rr
II -o
J o· -o
QUEEN
ROOM#; 16
I
I nn__n n::J..n nn 7f'"L.n n~ -nn -FL...Jr
15'-0"
KING
ROOMit204
y
,, _a~::::~a~::::~a~::=~,~::::~a~::::~::::~a~::::~,~==-=' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ---------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------- ---- ---------------------- ---------------------- -- ---------------- - oa aae.~1'£ilmeoaoaa .= --------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ------------- ----~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ---------------------- ---------- ----- ---------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------- ---- -------------------------------------- ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- '
•
,s· o·
J\ .

KING b
ROOM#205 ~
N
',-"'
,s· o·
KING
ROOMl/20!
,-----7
I I
I I
I I
I TI I ,;,-, I
I
I
I
I Ji r::--~'lllJ--!-'-12'-10·'~----
x: I I
i I : :

I I
L J
== {] \__ __) GI£ \__ __) □ {] \__
1---a------J o ••
I
QUEEN
ROOM#215
I
-0
QUEEN
ROOM#214
I
QUEEN
ROOM#213
I I
QUEEN
ROOM#212
,s·-o·
jJ
-
KING
--=-+-+"--',c-~4~~-#208-----j■
'?,
I
;,,
N
CIJ I
•·-a· J
~ cy
_I ~
00 fJ
0 a--+l--,'--/ __ ,2•-•·--+------.tl
L/
KING
ROOM#209 -
I
N
//--',a-iit-1--H-';.;\\\'14-1-Hl--hl
,. "I\' ,I
' ~
I
;..
0 I
'°
c:::J
~
I
i--
, 111 •
KING
ROOM#210
~ ---+-6'-0"--l ;,,
I
0 ·!•-- n ;:-
= J
0 I
-~
KING
AOOM#211

TYPE OF ROOMS
FLOORS
BASEMENT FLOOR • 1
1st FLOOR
2•1FLOOR
3rd FLOOR
4th FLOOFI
5th FLOOFI
6th FLOOR
TOTAL

PERCENT

PARKING
LOBBY

I-IOTEROOM

COIIMONAAEA
HOIB_ ROCUS
HOTS.ROOMS

HOTELAOOMS
HOT13...AOOMS
HOTB.ROOMS
l
10 10
22 15
13 15
85 ACCESSIBLE KING QUEEN ACCESSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDRCOM SUITE TOTAL 1 11
1 6 1 18
3 2 27
1 3 1 3 23
1 1 6 22
1 1 2 19
5 14 2 13 119

75.6% 13.4% 10.9% 100%
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS -CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 0511512020
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
A.09
\0
,....;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
rn,\,l\.DJ" 111111.1..JJ11 • ..Jnnnnn u" f'l.!Jln r > I I
I
I ,I
w
:,.._ _____ '-I-! 2 ,· -11 • ____ i_ ...... -f=-sc-\10' -0" I ~~gM#323 0 z \
, I +-----tC-.,.-,'7""T,= "----r1 1-----1+-----t II § ll,· I
,
0 I
in
KING
ROOMi/322
I -------19'-1"-----
• ',, ... __ ,,.. ... ✓
-.a.::====
,------7
I I
I I
I I
I I :I QUEEN
ROOMft321 I I '•
I
111rn
m
I
N
I
I I 1
I 10·-o·--1f---!11'"---".~,1•_8" /
! ! ;<
I L ______ .J
rnITTlrn rn n rn 11 11 rn r
r ;iL.....lli, I, n I 1 I r ...J I 11 I II '11....1.. I I 1 I r " n'l.D~=in ,n n n L II JflDJ,n,7 fT7 n _fl______f1D , •L.Df1 nn ,1 I
I
I
4'-1"
,,.0._7• KING 0._8• KING KING KING
:.::, ROOM4i318 ROOM#317 -o·-e· ROOM#316 RCX)MH315
,
N
I
-
a--+1t-,1--/--22'-6"----+---./I
./
KING
ROOM#-312
LJ
ID .I
.
• I
7 I ~ I u I
,~+J.c,=7C '-II
I N '\
I I
"' ' ' '
-
' N
I
l
ROOM#3~;·-2"--+---;-t1I D
'o □

ONE BEDROOM
ROOM#314
~ l
\-.
' in
l
l
I
l
_>< 15 "' ..11 I _g_ ;··-ot~,._'----11'1__}~"■lr ;;;:_~-+B't~'•~· .. i••: .. "11T1 ;;;-~,[] I ----t-t--t-.:..:_:_:__c_':f'.:.._Hf-4 •-------j--17'-4"-----1-----.111-=-----+----17' -4 "-+------ilt-----20' -2"----N+------t-----22'-15"-----1-------,1 -----------JJ'-10"--------~ e I O 0'-8" m m N
I
N
rrl I
' ' ' If) ;,. ;,.

I I I I I n I I ITTl r I I
,,,,.---.... ,
' ' ' ' I I
' ' ' , ' , .. ___ ... ..-
n
BASEMENT FLOOR • 1
1s1FLOOR
2nd FLCOA
3rd FLOOR
4th FLOOR
5th FLOOR
6th FLOOR
TOTAL

PERCENT
,
N
I
I I

PARKJNG
LOB8Y

HOTEROOM

COMMON AREA

HOTEL ROOMS

HOTEL ROOMS

HOTEL ROOMS

HOTEL ROOMS

HOTEL ROOMS

KING ACCESSIBLE KING
10 1
10 1
22 15 1
13 1
15 1
85 5

75.6%

QUEEN ACCESSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDROOM SUITE TOTAL
11 6 1 18
3 2 27
3 1 3 23
1 6 22
1 2 19
14 2 13 119

13.4% 10.9% 100%
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L·l ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED

THIRD FLOOR
PLAN
A.10
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
0 ~
w >-
~
>-0
~
..
~
:;;
" 0:
0 ~
w
~ z
w ..
~
{ I o·-s· I I 'I ~
-u--------2•·-r---+---+---.ll'r-sc-=-
_.,-0'-5"
\ 10·-o·
QUEEN
ROOM#401
. 12'-5"
Ba-,· -·
a·
~ [ID
La--------37'-0"---+-------------j-
[]
tl I
0 IX
/,,,----,~ I
~-------2:,·-2·----+------~
1 ACCESSIBLE QUEEN
ROOM/1419 ..

I
II IC, ➔I ~
' ' ~
~--~
II I II 11 n 1 7 11 I II
= --~
I\
=•
\ -
mi11 111
o· 5"
Lf-7"
KING
ROOM#402
o· -, .. o -s· iXIX~o •· I
+---F-+---j-12'-7"---... -6. -0"~6' O"
:,
I
;,,
KING
ROOM#403
~ [ID '-0'-5"
w
KING
ROOM#404
0 KING I
ROOM#405
I~ llr,ll
~~---+-+-----,~ /
I( di I / l\~-~-,,~~~IIE=-,1------,-----,.------,-~l~l[=,➔~I~~~,_( I 11 11 I I II I I ~ n1f
'w
I
0 j
'w
I
-~
I
m
13'-7"
KING
ROOM#406
~ • ,JI I .
• J
x:
r------7
y I I
I I
I • I
I 11
I ~I
I I !
'
1x:
11 12'-10"
I I
I I
I I
I I
L ·-J
.

II 11 fr7 I II 11 I I II
lJ
I
I
I
(
I\
'o
I
·w

ONE BEDROOM
ROOM#408
~ • I JI I
~ ..
-----=s· o·-
Ur
__)
:,
I
;,,
-
-\

ACCESSIBLE KING
RCXJM/1409
KING
ROOM#410
l
J
I
-,co57f.=,.----.---~+-----
~ IIWI I .:,
-"-
;:x
-~ '
-v7
'

ONE BEDROOM
ROOM#411
' "' ' ' I
' "' ' ' ' ' ,
g·•-o ,
I I
FLOOflS
BASEMENT FLOOR -1 PARKING
1~FLOOR LOBBY

HOTEROOM
2nd FLOOA COMMON AREA

HOTELRCOMS
3rd FLOOR HOTELRCOMS
... FLOOO HOTELAOOUS
5th FLOOR HOTEL ROOMS
6th FLOOR HOTELRCOMS
TOTAL

PERCENT
KING
10 10
22 15
13 15
85 ACCESSELE KING
1 1
1 1
1 5

75.6%

QUEEN ACCESSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDROOM SUITE TOTAL
11 6 1 18
3 2 27
1 3 23
1 6 22
1 2 19
14 2 13 119

13.4% 10.9% 100%
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS -CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED
4TH FLOOR PLAN
A.11
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
Q'-6"
,'+
I
0 0
~
w >-
~
>-0
~
..
~
:;;
" 0:
0 ~
w
~ z
w ..
~
.I
~
I
-"' 1
~
[' I ~I
I
I """,_,e•-3•
0 ONE BEDROOM I"-10•-6-
\ I
I
I
-ROOM#501 -
I I ~ II~ 'JI '
lt---r---:------26'-B"
:.,
1 ' 0

ACCESSIBLE KING
ROOM#515
... ---....
=
,, 26·-a·------f----
, ' . I I --t---~ -,-----
II n II Ill nr l rn 11
1r;i11 •w mJ--=-_L__---+-~~ )-----------
-ONE BEDROOl
0 'f _./
ROOM#.502 .N
I I
I I
,------7 J~K
I I ,/
I I "=-~-..di■ I I '.,.
0 '
N
I I 1
I I F"'1 ,,-
! ,o·-o·--ti-'ll~/",R
I L ______ .J
.1
~
I
"'
~
I
:., \__
' ;-,
12'-0"
J\ .

V V
---=,~=~,--=;/'-,~==~,~==~==~,~::::~::::~,~==~==~,~==~=~== "\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
== -eee~l'iG!ilmeeeeee == =-=============== ; ---,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -- -----------------=-=============== -- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
--------------------------------------I ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ---------------------- KING • •
Rtgi<;,512 -o·-s· ROOM#S11 °: ~~M#510 -o·-s· ~~M#509 z
N
I I II II II rn n rn I I I I
76'-4"---------17'-4"--N-t-.... ----,---j-17'-4"---------17'-4"--N nn I
N
I
N
11n I I I fl71I II l I ln1 I
/ , ,
/ , ,
/ , ,
ONE BEDRCXJM#503
,/4
ij
~
.I • -
~
- I
"
fl
12· 9" /
(
. J\
x:
r------7
.
•
'
•
y
----
.

I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
X'I
I
: I I
I
L
I
I
I
T1
·~ I
I ! 12'-10·
I
I
I
I
-.J
.
0 -
.I ~
14'-7"-----~-5'-1 =
1:r-s· ~
\~
°: KING _0. _8• KING
/ , ,
/ , ,
-
~ICI<
'rn
-
,, ,
/ , ,
, ,/
IX "
Cfil' •. -o·
~
~
fl
~
~
22'-6"
\
11111
b \;;JI
L'.JI
ID
----::6' o"-
'r.O' -B"
It
, .
.I w
I
1 / . ,
/ , .
/ , ,
, / ,
/ , ,
/
15'-1"
I
;,,

ONE BEDROOM
~CR0:1w
1-,
~
IM
~
~ \I,
'[\'
KING
ROOM#505
. m
' 0
.,
I
0 '-
• ~
I
'm
·' m
I
·~
I
I
'o
I
..
/ , .
§ IWI I
• I
0 D
li&J
,'
' . N
I
"' ' ,,
s'-o ;:x
'
'
' ' ' I
I
' • /
' I
' ' ' ' ' ' ;
.

ONE BEDROOM
ROOM#506
1----1.'3'-1"-+--..
l
J
l
o·-s· ·N~ ROOM#S08 ROOM#507
-----17'-4"----r----19'-5"-----N+---+--+---22'-6"------■

II I II
.

N
I

II I I I
FLOOflS
BASEMENT FLOOR -1
1~FLOOR
2nd FLOOR
3rd FLOOR
4th FLOOR
ShFLOOII
6th FLOOR
TOTAL

PERCENT
m rn r
KING

PARKING
LOBBY
10 HOTEROOM

COMMON AREA
10 HOTELRCOMS
HOTELRCOMS 22
HOTEL ROOMS 15
HOTELAOOUS 13
HOTELRCOMS 15
85 ACCESSELE KING QUEEN ACCESSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDROOM SUITE TOTAL 1 11
1 6 1 18
3 2 27
1 3 1 3 23
1 1 6 22
1 1 2 19
5 14 2 13 119

75.6% 13.4% 10.9% 100%
:~!~:~~I :1!~
•]~1[rt~
:c1 ;{•llJ :l-
~•J L'~ I :l!~ ~ ~'•

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
maillo:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED
5TH FLOOR PLAN
A.12
\0
,....;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
O' 8"
0 ~
w >-
~
>-0
~
..
~
:;;
" 0:
0 ~
w
~ z
w ..
~
KING
ROOM#601 . v
' ;..,
ACCESSIBLE Kl%
AOOM#613
~
I
N

II II I
.
0 I
N
__ ,,,,,-,-
_./
/
__ ,,­
__ /
_.,/'
I
0 I
v
~ ,__ •. ••------__,,/ 7' s•---,---------------;----------1/f-----------g••-s" J .._ r------._ r~.....__,, .._ r------._ r~.....__,, ,7 "/.._ r'--....,_ S PRAGE W' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \_ • J\. • J\. • • J\. • J1_,,-,..-r • J\. • ) x·Jl I
,------7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
--t--1 Q' -0~---t.-'1
I I
I I
I I
' I L ______ _J

ONE BEDROOM
ROOM#612
Ill 111 I 11 11 Ill II 11 II II
'o
I
a,
I"'-._,. -a·/
n/~ . • I
~';2
/K
·' 0
I
;..,
I
.
0 I
N
QUEEN
ROOM#611
I
I Ill I I I I
f<>
X( \ \)--1 ~2' \ \)-7 '<('----+l'lls'\Y \\'-----'":::-::-:;;f,._,,~c:::::::;;cf--'s:::::-y7t,.7l_.L-',,-"::: __ ,,;r-::7~7y--'.c:::/,f-"c::::y~ , "'\ ./J 'i /I \ 1 /I _,,,
KING
ROOM#610
KING
ROOM#609
N
I
N
KING
ROOM#608
. -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
__ ~eeeal\G(jMeeeeee ------------------------------------================= ; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------I !!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!! ----------------------

TERRACE
-✓-
_.­
,/
.. /
" .,,,-
--✓-
__ .,,..,,,--
". /
"" /
r------7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I TI

I (JJ I
I ~ I
I I
12'-10·--c-----,II
I I
I I L ______ J
/
~J_plC~
~~=:;;====='1114'-1.

I
.

N
I
~
~ICS<
'rn
-
I , I
u I
_6'-0"-
__)
I~ llt I
D
;~
-v7
' ' ' . ' N
' I
' "' ' ' ' '·
;
9'-o
,
;:x
. "/
. "/
KING
, , ,,,,,..,.-
"" /
ROOM#602 b
I
"'
ic,
~~M#603 ~
I
ONE BEDROOI!
ROOM#604 ,
~
' ;,,
_/
) •■■--+'~ •a· 8 .. 11 I
_/ l'li: ..11 I
<-----19'-6----N+-----t+-----22'-6"------■
I I
KING
ROOM#605

I I I I II
.

N
I

II I I II I
BASEMENT FLOOR -1
1st FLOOR
2nd FLOOR
3rd FLOOR
4th FLOOR
51h FLOOR
&lh FLOOR
TOTAL

PERCENT
I
I II I
~NG

PARKING
LOBBY
10 1-0lE ROOM

COMMON AREA
10 HOTH.ROOMS
HOTH.ROOMS 22
HOTB..ROOMS 15
I-OTB.ROOMS 13
HOTH.ROOMS 15
85 ACCESSIBLE KING QUEEN ACCESSIBLE QUEEN ONE BEDROOM SUITE TOTAL 1 11
1 6 1 18
3 2 27
1 3 1 3 23
1 1 6 22
1 1 2 19
5 14 2 13 119

75.6% 13.4% 10.9% 100%
:~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS -CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED
6TH FLOOR PLAN
A.13
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p,..

Cl")
;;ii<)\ -,, r
n, 0 ;,, .,,
-n,
N
+---------------'"-::-----48'--P" "----------+----+--------t SLOPE
1/2" FER 12" ♦ ♦
.
(\j
SLOPE
1/2" FER 12"
SLOPE
1/2" FER 12"
-
-I\)
• <JI .,, 5 n,
;,, .,,
-n,
N
•
♦
48'-6"
(\J
- lU
IL
°' 9 it'
<fl •
(\j
--
.

N
I
;,,
N
'o
I
;.,
•
SLOPE
1/2" FER 12"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• ,,,,,aai\G!aWaaaaaa a
----------------- -----------------• -------------------- -------------------- ~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ -- ------------ --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• ':i ~ -
'I-' -N • <JI .,,
~
n,
;,,
-n,
N

SLOP SLOPE SLOPE
I /2" FER 2" • • I /2' FER. I 2" 1/2" FER 12'
sr-r
(\J
- lU
IL
°' 9 it'
<fl •
(\j
--
;;,
• <JI -,, r
n, 0 ;,, .,,
,-----+------+---".,--52'-10"--l--'-171"------------r'::........---------+ I\)
-
-N • <JI .,,
~
n,
;,,
-n,
N
• •
88'-11#
(\J
- lU
IL
°' 9 it'
<fl •
(\j
--
"' I
-~
SLOE
1/2" PE I 2"
.
~
I
-. •
SLOPE
1/2" PER 12"
('J
lU
IL 0c
0 lU
~ IL
<fl •
SLOPE
1/2" PER I 2"
~-----
:~!~:~~I :1!~
•]~1[rt~
:c1 ;{•llJ :l-
~•J L'~ I :l!~ ~ ~'•

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 ll/0112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED

ROOF PLAN
A.14
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
~ "' " " "'
cc
~ w cc
" z
;,
w
I
"l
+228'-6"
-- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
+209'-o +s
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
+199'-o +4
- - - - - -
+189'-0+3
I
+119•-0+2 I
--------::1-= --------1-
ii
~
0 +164'-o +1
lg:
________ _J __
+1s1·-o
-1
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
- --- -
- - - - -
- - ---
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LA
.,. fj
/ - - - - - - - --/ --r - ---
- - - - --- ---r - ---
11 ~
"' .... .Ii,_~_.. .. ,, fj :ls
)I - - - -,--r -
/
- - - -,_
~
~ / KING ROOM C: ~ ~
'
~ ~
t' &

KJNG ROOM
[ l - - - -
- - ---
..!I. ....
-tft
GYM
,+
- - --
} :)l.

I
~'I
KING ROOM MANAGEMENT RECE ~Nn
. IC":~ ""' 0
I - a> •o
'"-\®, ®Jd I
~
"
~~
......, ---
~
-
~
--I -
PARKING ~ ' I LITYR
' '~

SECTION A-A
0 KING ROOM KING ROOM
0 '

KING ROOM KING
~-
0 KING ROOM
-~ - - - - -
-r - - - - -
0 - - - - --r -- - - -
-r - - - - -
- - - - - --r - - - - -
I
---llliii'"'" ~ n
r n / r n I C D -✓ •
- ~ -H ~ -E ~!!!!!!~ ~® = = =
n n _,,., ,., _, ,., ,., ,,..
~
' -
"'{@ '
- - - - - -
-- - - - - -
-- - - - - -
-" - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-- - - - -
- - - -I-- - - - - -
- ---- - - - - -
- ---- - - - - -
- ------ - - -
- ---- - - - - -
- - - - - -
-~
~®y
~
0 I .,
.

N
I
ls
I
;_
" I
• N
I _______ ;..
0 I .,
.
0 I
-~
'o
I
--
1 .

N
I
;_
.

N
I ;_
0 I
0 .
0 I
0 .
0 I
0 'o
' 0
.
0 I
~
'o
I
~
I

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& RE\/-1 11/01/2019
~
RF\/-2 05/15/?Q?Q
~
Section A-A
A.15
"'.1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------... +--------+ \0
,-;
0 I
0 N

0...

V)
+228'-6" ~
- - - - -.b~ -~---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ACCESSIBLE KING
- - - - - --f--
- - - - - --~-
'' '' ''
+209'-o +s

ACCESSIBLE KING
- - - - - --~-
- - - - - --f--
+ 199'-o +4
0 I
0 QUEEN ROOM
- - - - - --f--. ... - - - - - --~-
,7
0 0 0 0 0

QUEEN ROOM
- - - - - -- -~ -
- - - - - -- -[7 ~ -
+179'-0+2
~~ ... ,,g;{fa ~ I_
0 !lo--•·
I
.
f - - -
r-
- ---- - - -~-- -~----------- - - - ---- - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - -~---- - - w
- -- ij;
+164'-o +1
1 0 0 0
1, OMEN RECEPTION
I I lr.KEA In
"
OFFICE (CHECK-IN) Ol'FICE COFFEE SHOP & BAR
~ ~~
In n In n In 7 In n In n
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '-'--{@ ,@P 0 I
;,,
+1s1'-o
-1 ~
0 ~
I
'
7'\_
' ,, C, n.\_ ' ,, I , n n n,
~"1
I ~~ II!! ~ 1111 ~
!a!j gj Ir!!! Ill ~ '
\ I. \
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @P ~
=

SECTION B-B
- - - - - - - - -- -
- - - - - - - ---17 - - ---- - -
- ---- - - .<' - - ---- - -
'' ''
- ---- - -

A - - ---- - -
0 0
- ---- - - x - ---- - -
0 0 0
- ---- - -
-<' - - ---- - -
0 STEAM
I i
ROOM
.

I
I~
'o Ir
Ii
I
·--
~ I I

LUGGAGE

GUEST STORAGE PARKING
~-:\
..
'
'
\
'
1, <O .

I
N
I
=
;.,
•
' N
'
-
=r
-
1 "' ·~ I
I .,,
" :,.

I
--~
---
'o 0
I
I 0
"
N
I
'- -
---
0 0
I
I 0
·,,
:,.

I
--=-" ---
0 0 I
I 0
"' .

N
I
--~-
---
0 0 I
'
0 "' .

N
I
,_.:,
0 0
I
I ~
~
.

N
I
'-
. 0 0
I
I ;,, ._
I l
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
-, -
Section B-B
A.16
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N

0...

V)
+228'-6"
+209'-o +s
+ 199'-o +4
+189'-0+3
1+179'-o +2 -+---------==-t----------
I~
+164'-o +1
FRONT
......
.-. : •
I • • : . . .
. . . . .
: ..
. ·
....
.1
\ I
' '
,, I

STUCCO SAND
WHITE

ARCHITECTURA GLAZING WOOD EXPOSED CONCRETE
GRAY
. . . . ..
: • f
. . . . .
. . .• : ;.
. ·.-.. . .. . . . ..
. .
•• ... '1 • •• . . . . .. . . .. .. :· .... . . • I. \ •• I. . . .
•,
. . -·
. . . .
. . .
. .. ... . . . ' .
. -
: .
• • • <I ~ •
,
... .
: .·
.
,.
•' ... . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..
..
. .
. .
• • • • 1
• . . . . .
. ... . •.. .
. .. . . . .
• •"' • l
... ,• .
' . . .
. ·.
.. -~+
•, •.· i
. . .. ·. .
. .. . . . . . . ·. :- . . . · ...
.. . .
' . . . .
. •.
. .
. . . . . . . -
....
: • .. 1
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
.. . . . . -..
·.• .. · ... ·' ·. . . .. . . · .... . .• . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... · ...
..
.. . .. .
···.. .. .. . :. . .. : ,•
. . . . . ..

I
I
I
I
L_
f---
I
I
I
I
~­
,-
I
I
I
I
--+--f---
-----,-L, ___ ,,
H
I
I
I
I

I ----------
-------....... I
,.,,..,..,--......., I
/ '
.,, , I
// -7 ,------7 '...__ I
/ I I I " I
/ I 1 1 electrical wire '
/ I I ' I / I I
I I \ I
/ I I stand less wire hard cover \ I / I I
/ : I \ I
/ : : white plexi glass and light \\ I
/ : : I \ I
/ I I I \ I
I I I 1 o'-3" 1 1 ,
I 0'-3" I I \----------_J j------7 I
/ I I I \
I I I \

I I I I
I I I I \

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I

I I I I
\ I I I

I I I I
\ I I I

I I I I
\ I I I / I I I
\ : ~------~ /
\ I /
\ : /
\ I /
\ -~ I
\ I
\ /
' /
' /
" / ' /
" /
' / ' / ...._
'-..... ..... -----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. . .. . .. . . . .
. . . . . . '
. . .
. .
· ..

FACADE NATURAL WOOD
. ...
•' .
. . . .. . ..
. . ....
' . .. . . . , .... . ... · ...
. ..
. ' ... . . ... . . . .
. .... .. . . ... .. . . .... ..
. . . . . •, .. .
. . . ·, .
'. : ; . . : . . . . : ..... .
• : 1 •
. . . .. .. . . . .....
.. , . ., . . .. .. . ... :• -·
. . .. . : . . . . .
; .. . ~-
' . . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . . . -. .. . .
.. . ..
, ..
. . ... , . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
... .. . . ..
. . . :
: ... . . . . . . . . , .
•• f •
. ..
. . . . . . .. . ' -.. ... . . . . . ..... . . . .. . ... . .. . . .. ; . . . .. . . ... : ... :-.. . . . . . . . . . :
.. ..... :. . .

I • • •
. . ·, ....
. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... ..... . . .. . . -. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ... .
.: .... . ..
. . : : ··-: . .. ; . . . . .. . . .. ' .... . . . . . .... . ·­ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
: ~---------------------------7
I I 19'-0" I

I I I I
L ____ i Jt WINCHESTER HOTEL L __ _
I n
L ___________________________ J
. : . . ,
....
, .·
I
I
'
I
I
\
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
.. . . . .

I " • • •
..... . . . . . . .. .. -. .... .. .
.. : ...
••• , l •, • •
. . .. . . . . ... ~. . .. .. .. . .­ . .. . . ..
,•
. .
. • ..
.. . .
. . ,
/
/
/
. ....
. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ' . . . . .. .. . ..
-. .
, . . . ..
. ... . .
/
/
/
. . . .
/
•, . . . . . ... . .
,':.::. . . . . . . . . . . ... .· . ~
:-:: '1 ··.-
... . . .
~
/
• ..
=
/
I'
/
.
. . ..
. ..
~
V
/
. . . . . . . ..
' .. . .
-. . ..
. .
. , . .
. ...
' .. ,
~
' N
'
--:::r:1 --1-
~
~v
, w w I
_I 0,
~
.
0 I
1n
' 0
I
·~
.
0 I
1n
.
0 ' N
' N
'
I
0 I
0 0
'
"
0 I
b
0 ' b
0 I
l l
~
' ' ' \
\
\
N
I
n
--•
- -
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC .
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
11',. _..,,R,i::,E\llc/-.1-1 __..1.w 1/0.u.1=/20~1=9 __ 0 __ R_E1_,.,_as_,1_s,_20_2_0 __
~------

PROPOSED

BUILDING

ELEVATION
(FRONT)
A.17
'-0
"""' 0
I
0 N
i::i...

V)

LEFT SIDE
~
N
~
~
<;>
lu
"' " " "' w
"
i
I p.
~ cc
"' w
I;; w cc
" z
;,
w
~ z
"l a:
+228'-6"
+219'-0 +6
+ 209•-o +s
+189'-0+3
+179'-0+2

STUCCO SAND
WHITE
<-----20·-o·----------,
. . .. . . . . .
.....
...
-..
_: : ·.-
. . •.. . .
· .. · ·. • . ..
,• .
---------1--------..
. , .. ...
.. , : . . ~
1 ... :
11 +164'-0+1
Ii
. .
• 1 •
• ... .. •: . . .·· . .. .. . . ...
. . . . . ·-
. . . . . . . .
' . . .. .. .. . . . . . ·. . .. . ... :·
.... ..
...
.. •' .. .
. : .· .. . .
. ,• .. . . ·.
. .

I I

ARCHITECTURAL LAZING WOOD

FACADE NATURAL WOOD
" .
... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...
. . . . ' . . .. . . . . .
•, ..
. ... ..
. ... .. . .. .. .. . .
. . . . ' . . .. ... . ... . . .
.. :
... · .. ,· ...
•• 1 .. I •
. . ·. . .. .....
... : • ; 4 : ..
: .. ·. .
.. • . * . . . . .. , . . .
. . . . . . . .
· .....
. . .
... . .. . .. ·- .. . .
• • •• • s .,. .. -: : .. . .. . :. ... .. -: . . <·•:.·· . ... .. . .. ' ..... . . . . . . .•. .. . . . . . . .
. ... :·
.. . .
. . . -. . . . . .
. ' . .. . -· ..
•• ,: • • ••• : •• 1
!,•·::,.
.... · .. .', ... . :. . . . . . .. ,. . : ........... :
: .. : . .. : ..
. .. .
. . . .· .. . . . .. :·
. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .
' . . . . .
. . .
.. . .. . ..
... . . :. . .. .
,I' : .. • • • •
. . : . . . ..
·-. . ,• . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . ' ,. . .~ . . ,· .• . . ~ _. .. : ...... ; ' .. ; • .. : •· !
. . . ~ ...
~. . . . . . . .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . '
.. . .
.. ..
: ... :· .. ,:
' . . . . . . . . . .. ' .. . ... . . . .....
; .
.. . . .. .. . .. . . . ..
. ' . . . . ... . . ,
. . -.
-.· ! ..
...
: . . . :
:· · ....
.. · ~ .· . . .
... : .. :
. .. . . .
. . : . . ~ .... . . . . '. . : . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .• . ~ • 4' •• • •
. . ·•· ......... . . . . .. . ~ .
" . . : . . . . . . .. .. . . . -. . -... . ... . .. .
.. . . . , .
. . . .. . ..
. ...... . . . .. ' . . . . .. . . . .
• • • • • • I
: .. : .. : -. . . .' .. . . .• .. . . -
. ', '
II I
.,
' '
.

N
I
-============-rJ
• w w I
~ QI
I
----------r
. a
I
"'
. a
I
"'
" I
"
b
I
II b
Ii ~
'-
.

N
'
'
. a
I
a
. a
I
a
" I
a
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

JMH WEISS, INC,
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
i1',. _.nR.i::.:El>Lct•.L1..J.11.w/0,.,_1,.., l20u..,1.,,_9 __ 0 __ R_E1_,.,_as_,1_s_t20_2_0 __
~------

PROPOSED

BUILDING

ELEVATION (LEFT
SIDE)
A.18
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
+228'-6"
-
-
+209' -0 +5
+ 199'-o +4
. ..
. . . .
·:
11 [
• • •, -. ' I
. . ~ ·. .. . . . . . , ..
+189'-0+3 ·.·· · ... ,._·· ....
= = = = = = = = = = = = i--.-_-,1~--: __ ~tlll!t: .. , --~ -:· . . . +179' 0+2 I -'.:
.. .
-
-
., .
+ 1 64' 0 +1
REAR
:
·.
·. ' .. . . . •.. . .
' . ' . . ... :.
. '
. .
. •
•• ! ••
. . .. ,. : : .-·:
'
. .. .. . ..

DD
I
. ·.
• • ,,I

STUCCO SAND
WHITE
..
' . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. . .. . ..• . . .•. . .. , . . . .. .. ...... ' . • r
# •• • .: •
, , . . . ·. . .. .

II, • • .. • •
. :· · ..... . ... :. ·; . . . . . .. ., .. . .. . ..
... : ...

ARCHITECTURAL G _AZING
D D
. ·• . . . . . . . . , . . . ........
..
,
..
' .. . .. .. •,
......
,•
..
. . . . . ....
. . .
.. . .. . . ..
ti' ••••
·-.... -.
·-
' '
I
-
-..
,, ,, I
WOOD

FACADE NATURAL WOOD

EXPOSED CONCRETE
GRAY
-. , , • . .
. '
. ..
,.
;.
..

D [
. . .. . . . ' . , . . .
,. 1 ... : ••
• • .: I
. .
. .. . .· . :
. ,
. , ..
• . .. . .
. . . ' .
.. .. •. ....
,.
.. •
. •
. . . .
[
. .
...
' .
..
. . . ' .. .. ..
'• : . . .
. .
. . : ... ·. ... . . .. . ·. ·. . ..
. . . .• .. . . . '
. ..
. . . . . ... . ..
. '
.. -. •,
.. . . . .. •' · .
. .,
. .
'\-, .. ·•. . .
,. . . . . .
. ,. . ..
•,
•.
.. . .. .. . '• . . . . . . . ..
. • ..
-----v
------
.
0 ' ;.,
.

N
I
:::
------
b
• I
ro
0 ' 0
0 ' 0
-----v-------
b
I
"'
b
I
"' .

N
' -
-- -
.
0 ' ;.,
.
0 I
0 0
I
~
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

JMH WEISS, INC,
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS -CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 1110112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
.. ,
-

PROPOSED

BUILDING

ELEVATION
(REAR)
A.19
'-0
'""' 0
I
0 N
i::i...

V)
r---7
I ,. L '•· --7
J
N
·'
l
,--J
L ___ J
i " ' '--
.
0 ' 0
l

RIGHT SIDE
r
'o
' 0
l
1'-0"
r .
0 ·' 0
l
.

N
' '-
o·-e·
,-----7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I . ... j :
' ' I ' . . j ..
' .

I ... . ' ·1
I ' .. ~-, . : .

I . ':_.___.J -'
F .. ~
I : .

I . · . . . . , . . .

I
"
•, ·. ·. •·· I .. '• :·.1 I . ,•
I
•. . .
_:1 • •' .

F .. . •, •,
-
F cc--'
•• ! . .

I . .. I : .
'
;
I ... '• I
I ' : I ' , ..

I . I : .... ' r" '--'-.
f . • .. . ~
-:::-,1 .,
I''
•,
··: I . · · . . ..

I·: . ·. .j . ··-. .

I . . t . : .. '
r •. . . I . ,• .. ... .
~
-·
~ . . .. I . : .. ' ' I . . . . . ·. I : : .

I . ' ,
I . . . ..

I : .. . . . I ' . . I . . . . I ..

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
L _____ J

STUCCO SAN
WHITE
+228'-6"
+209'-o +s
+ 1 99' -0 +4
+189'-o +J
+179'-0+2
,__ ___ ,e•-o·---
+164'-o +1

ARCHITECTURAL G AZING WOOD

FACADE NAT RAL WOOD

EX OSED CONCRETE
GR Y
,-----7
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
· .. , .. ... . · ... ·. .. . ·• .
, .... · .
: . . . . . l . .. . : . r
• I • • • • • r . •• . , . . ;, :.1·· ... ·.
. :-. ·1 ·• . . ; . . .,. ... .... j. . .. - . .. . . . . . . .. r · ... ..• . .... . . ' .. . . . . . .. . .

I
t
J ...... . .

I ·; • • • •
I
/' ...... . .. , 1 • • . •• . .

I . • • , .• . .•
" . " . I •. • . . ·. . . . . ,•
I I
L _____ J
· .. ·. . ' . · .. ·
• 1 •• : • • • •
.· : .. :
·.·.·-:.·-. .· .: ... ~ .. . . . . .. .
·.
. .
. . . : '
. .... ... .. . ... . .
):,~.~\
. . .... · .. ·
: : '
:, • I•• .I'
... : ., :
.. ..
..
.· . . . . . . . •. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . ... . .. .. ·. •:,· ... ~---· . ·. . .. · .... · .... :. . . ...... •, . . ... . · .. ··. . :
. . . ....
. •. .. . . . .
. .-· ·. _.-··.·· ....
: , : ... :
. . . . .. . , .
. . . . . . . ~ . : . : . . .. :··:•,:: . . . . . . . .. . . ·-,::.:•.-: . . . .. . . .. . : . . .
.. ' . .. . ....
.·
.. .. ..
.....
·-. . . .. . .. . . . .
..• .
. : :
· ....
. .. . ·• .. :
: : :
.... : ..

I • ." i ."
'• .
.

N
I
==================== r; . ~
~ '
· .... •.
'• . "
. . . . . .
.. '
.... . . . . .. . ..
..... . . . . . . .
. . . . ...
. ..
-...
.... ... ·-~ ... : .. : . . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . ·. . . .: . .. .. . . ..
.. , . . .. .
. ..
. . . .
.. . ·-..
.. . • =. . .•
' . . . . . .. ~ . .. . . . . .. . . ' ·. . . . . .. · .. " .. '\ .. ·-.
. ... . . . . .
. . .
. . . .... . . . . . . . .
..
. .
. .. . . . . . .. -. . . ...
: .· :
. . ... ... . . ,; .
.. ·.. . . . . '. : : .. ; . . . . . . .. · ... : .
~ ·' '··· : .·. . . . . . . . . . . . • ... ·· ·. :-· .. : .. •·. ·: · ..... .
.. , .
. .. -
. ..
. ... .
... '
• •• • 1
. : . . .
. . .. . . . •.
. . .
. •,
~ . . . . . . ..
. . .. .
., .
. ..
. •
'
_1 (7)
~
.
0 ' ;,,
" I
.
0 ' a
a
' a
--------i--.-a
0 '
I
;;,
','
0 '-
= = = = = = = = =r = = = =
20•-oH
'o 9
I
' 0 -~
.

N
'
I
'
I~ a a Ii: ' w
'
;,,
I~
;,,
l I
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
.. ,
-

PROPOSED

BUILDING

ELEVATION
(RIGHT SIDE)
A.20
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
~ "' " " "'
cc
~ w cc
" z
;,
w
I
"l

ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING
WOOD

FACADE NATURAL WOOD

STUCCO SAND
WHITE

EXPOSED CONCRETE
GRAY
Wll'£HE.STER BLVD

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
11',. _.c,R.i::.:El>Lct•.c.1..J.11.w/0,_,_1,.., l20u..,1_,,__9 __ 0 __ R_E1_,.,_as_,1_s_120_2_0 __
~------

PROPOSED

MATERIAL BOARD
A.21
"'.1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------... +--------+ \0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
~~ .. ..... , .
\
.., ~
'
Wltf.'.:HEST£R BLVD
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
.L!',. RE\/-1 11/0112019
£ RF\/-2 05/15/?Q?Q
~------
~------

PROPOSED

BUILDING

RENDERING
A.22
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~

PROPOSED

BUILDING

RENDERING
WINCHESTER Bl.VO
A.23
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~

PROPOSED

BUILDING

RENDERING
WI-.ICHESTER Bl.VO
gir A.24
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
-
...
~
' ..
◄ - 1 -
WI-.ICHESTER Bl.VO
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
i1',. _.c,.RC.Jfl1.=..t-1L..J.11w./Ou.1 /""'20J..L1 "-g __ 0 __ R_E1_,.,_as_,1_s,_20_2_0 __
~------

PROPOSED

BUILDING

RENDERING
A.25
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
-, ..

PROPOSED

BIRD VIEW

RENDERING
A.26
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
-, ..

PROPOSED

BIRD VIEW

RENDERING
A.27
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
I I • - ~
I I
AUTUMN 9 AM AUTUMN 10 AM
AUTUMN
WINTER 9AM WINTER 10AM
WINTER
I I
a g
D
aal I□
AUTUMN 12 AM
WINTER 12AM
- -
~
I I
I I
I
□
AUTUMN 2PM
WINTER 2PM
LJ
ODO
(JD
l
I I
AUTUMN 4PM
I I
WINTER 4PM
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
.. ,
-

PROPOSED

SHADOW STUDY
A.28
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)
M II
■ 11
■ 11
-jj
-- ■ ■
IJIJ] I I
: : r IL.I
SPRING 8AM
SPRING
-■
!
-IM I
■ 1117
I][[] I I
■ I■ II ii ,!ii,__,_--,,
I I i D Cl
SUMMER 8AM
SUMMER
IIC:::J
IIC:::i
V
I I
' I
,::::i~
□Cl
□[I]
•
I!'--------.-' i I
ggr-1 -,-.,,
i Ii I D
SPRING 10AM
I II
I 11
I 11
~~
CJCJ
□DJ I 1.--i
i u i'::::i .-1 ,--,
11 I i~~D
SUMMER 10AM
□
'iJ E?
,D□
il?lJ
: [f I]
□
LO
£8
8§
Do D
-"J...>O -u...u □
CG]
l~~I B
□ 1 I I
I
g
~TI D
gg r-lj---,
BB D □
SPRING 12AM
□
SUMMER 12AM
D
1 1
SPRING 2PM
g
TITio n
g g r--1 .,_,
BB D
SUMMER 2PM
□
c'.Jo□□c
(JD~C:
• I
I
SPRING 5PM
' I
I
I
-I
I
■
11 I
□rn
■1 I i==:i■ I ■ 1,---,.....--.1
I i D
SUMMER 5PM
D
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~
.. ,
-

PROPOSED

SHADOW STUDY
A.29
\0
,-;
0 ' 0
N
0-..

V)
+179'-o I
+2
r======1==
, I!
0 "'
~ i~
L+164'-o
west elavation
,f--------------------------------------195'-o"-----------------------------------------------------------,,

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I
~~-------------------cl ,-1 -~------------------,1 ,-1 -~------------; I I I I

I I I I
~--transparent area: 470.20sq ft ~--transparent area: 502.45sq ft ~--transparent area : 329.49sq ft I II I
I 11 I
I 11 I
I II I
I ,__I -~I --------sll II
~--tran
1 sparent area
1 :130.50sq ft transpare~t area: 364.87sq ft~
1 --transparent area: 74.15sq ft
I I
L - - - -i-- - - - - -_J
I
I
I
I
I
total transparent area : 1871.66 sq ft
total surface area : 2925 sq ft
total solid area : 1053.34 sq ft
total transparency rate : 63 % Solid Area
I
I ~ ~[•~~--~~-Transparent Area --------------_J
:.,!~;~~I ;7!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J l'~ I :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& ElEll-1 11/0112019
~
BE)l-2 05l:15l2020
~

PROPOSED

TRANSPARENCY
STUDIO
A.30
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N
0-..

V)

FIRESIDE DRIVE
(PUBLIC STREET) NORTH

GRAPHIC SCALE
1212 &

TOPOGRAPH C MAP
1224 W NCHESTER BOULEVARD

SAN JOSE, CAL FORN A
FOUND SPIKE IN WELL_/'
1 ro o 10 20
~~---~-... -~-'.'.I' -
1 ~
1 a
0:::
:?;
LLJ
___j ,--.._
::::i f-----
0 ~ co 0::: f-----
0::: U)
LLJU I--_J
V) co
Lu :::::)
=c~
(___)
2 -$
8-1

FOUND SPIKE IN WELL
( rn FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
0 I~
N

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917022
N89'44'00"W 181.00' - r __ 3500· __
r y-I 146.00' --; '
.,., I
"' " .
"' 0
"'0 ,,;
! ~
g
0 S1 z
35'
0 0
,,;
0 N
" ' 0
0 0
s z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 10' RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT PER BK 7417, PG 537

I RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
I
I
I 0
0 0
1212 S WINCHESTER BLVD 0
·o APN 27917021 0
0 0
0 0
,,;
0 N
" ' 0
0 ·o
I I
~-~-----------------------------------; 0
' I ;
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1224 S WINCHESTER BLVD I APN 27917020
I
0 I
"! I ~
0 I 0
V
I 0' RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT PER BK 7417, PG 276 0

RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
~
0 I
I
I
I
I
I

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917028
n co
~
n
" ' o, OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
z~ APN 27917029
f-----§.l
u
<(
0:::
f-----

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 2791703D
LEGEND
~ CENTERLINE
Ir. PROPERTY LINE

CONC CONCRETE

DI DRAINAGE INLET

EM ELECTRIC METER

EV ELECTRIC VAULT
0 0:::
§
Lu
___j ,--.._
::::i f-
0 t::J
[OD'.:
f-
0::: Vl
LLJO
I--__J
V) DJ
Lu :::::)
=c~
(___)
2 -s
8-1
35' I FF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
I
I
/_ 35.oo· _, ,_ I --------,-
I I Ci_ PAYNE AVENUE
(PUBLIC STREET)
FH
w
146.00' ~~ ) GP
Na9·44•oo"w 181.00' -OH
pp
TRACT NO. 1591
MB 63/36-39
RE
SMH
TYP

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN WOF
APN 27917042 WMH
WM

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF SANTA CLARA ANO LOS GATOS ROAD, DISTANT THEREON S. o· 10' E. 100 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTER LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY LJNE OF THE 13.869 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY ANGELINA SANFILIPPO, A WIDOW TO IICTOR J. COLOMBINI, ET UX BY DEED DATED JULY 25, 1945 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 1945, COUNTY RECORDER'S FlLE NO. 365278; THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD S. O' IQ' E. 100 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL 111TH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 13.869 ACRE TRACTS. 89' 44' E. 225 FEET; THENCE PARALLIEL WITH THE CENTER LINE OF SANTA CLARA AND LOS GATOS ROAD N. o· 10' W. 100 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 13.869 ACRE TRACT, N. 89' 44' W. 225 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING BEING A PART OF SECTION 23, l 7 S., I W. M.0.M.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LANO DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM IICTOR J.

COLOMBINI, ET UX, TO CARL FERRANTI, ET UX, DATED JANUARY 23, 1946, RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1946 IN BOOK 1312 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AT PAGE 503, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTH o· 10'

EAST ALONG THE
EASTERLY LINE OF LAND SO DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CARL FERRANTI, ET UX, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89' 44' WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND SO DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CARL FERRANTI, ET UX, FOR A DISTANCE OF 44 FEET; THENCE NORTH o· 10' WEST ANO PARALLEL 111TH THE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF LAND SO DESCRIBED IN THE SAID DEED TO CARL FERRANTI, ET UX, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LANO SO DESCRIBED IN THE SAID DEED TO CARL FERRANTI, ET UX; THENCE SOUTH 89' 44' EAST ALONG THE SAID LAST MENTIONED LINE 44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 279-17-021

FIRE HYDRANT

GAS METER

GUARD POST

BUILDING OIIERHANG

POWERPOLE

ROOF ELEVATION

SEWER MANHOLE

TYPICAL

WOOD FENCE

WATER MANHOLE

WATER METER

REV DATE
□
WM
.,,I
"' " "' "'
w

0..
< u u,
0 z <
~
I
t
SMHO \
;
Xl 64.69
35·
CONC CROSSES Ir.

CD
"'
WALL ON Ii'.

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917022
~ / / yu;LO:~ / ,,j
NORTH

GRAPHIC SCALE
M o 10 W
~Ll•~•""a•~•._l~I
( IN FEET )
1 inch -20 !l
FENCE ON I[
Q i"'"-:!~~~~===~==~Sf8;;:.,9';;44:.,:'0~0~-E~1.:,46'-".o:'.::o_· ---==~---,,.!!WO~Fc...,,_.,l. __ =7 vt ~ 8 X16l73 / ________ ><23 DIRT X164.2]
I
I
&? I
a Jr I
X164.14
CONC
X164.22
CONC
w
S!;:
"' 0

BUILDING
RE=181.39'
8 X164.30
D ~
FENCE 05' W Ii'.

WIRE 0.6' E Ii'.

DIRT
Xl 64.28
BRICK
X164.53 u ~ I
SMHOrg-!Ht--.:e~ I
.I
z
:5 u
/5
X164.76
~I
I x, 64.31
)~[._..,?..17 CONC CROSSES I[
CONC
x, 64.37
V
X\64.59 DIRT
FF-165.44' x, 64.69
DIRT
coo
\~•i• n:: o Xl 64.67
Q of.J=a=±=tF==7°tF==-tF===,<J--x --, 11{)::.:'.'_F ~ aP-,1,'e\>\" X164.64
\\OF
uO scol WALL X164.77 }=:! X164.60
8 I ~rr-7'7-n
X164.59
x-x-x--x
X164.74
X165.3B
~r
35'
0 SMH

REVISIONS
u,-zs,
8□
CD
"' =,
u
u z
0 u

OESCRIPTIDN
Ix, 64 39 CONC
WALL ON Ii'.

CONC Xl 64.57
f--
X164.61
CONC
WALL 0.3' E I[
w

0..
< u
V,
0 z
:5
RE=178.94'

BUILDING
DIRT
CONC
Xl 64.83
X164.78
X164.81
--+---
CONC
WAL
Orn
~ h-''--",...,__~~ x, 64.82
< C>
S89"44'00"E 146.00'
WALL ON I[
WALL
WDF

BUILDING

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917042

WALL & FENCE
ON I[
PREPARED BY:
messier
Civil Engineering. Land Planning, Surveying

ONE VENTURE
SUITE 130
IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 339-5330
MFKESSLER.COM
pp

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917028

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917029
FENCE 0.5' W Ii'.

WIRE 1.3' E Ii'.

OWNERSHIP UNKNOWN
APN 27917030
N
~

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
>-

0..

X
w
1/)
"" :::;
D
f-
z
"" 1/)

WILLIAMS ROAD
~
\
0 > _J
(Il
"' w f-
1/)
w
I
u z
"'

PAYNE AVE
SITEA

VICINITY MAP
NTS

SURVEYOR'S NOTES
" -I
m ~
j
,
I. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF

2. NO DISTANCES OR ANGLES SHOWN HEREON MAY BE ASSUMED
BY SCALING.

3. NO EVIDENCE OF EARTHMOVING WORK. BUILDING

CONSTRUCTION, OR BUILDING ADDITIONS WERE OBSERVED ON
THIS SITE.

UNLESS THIS PLAN HAS THE SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE

SURVEYOR RESPONSIBLIE FOR ITS PREPARATION, THIS IS NOT AN

AUTHENTIC COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SURIIEY ANO SHALL NOT BE DEEMED RELIABLE.

TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.

APN: 279-17-021 & 279-17-D20
AREA
30,074.52 SQ. FT. OR 0,69 ACRES±

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE CENTERLINE OF WINCHESTER AVENUE PER PARCEL MAP MB 336/ 46, RECORDS OF SANTA CLARITA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BEING: NORTH 00'10'00" WEST

BENCHMARK
CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA BENCHMARK POINT NO. 537
DESCRIBED AS: THE LETTER "I" IN THE WORD "IRON" ON TOP OF CATCH BA:JN SOUTHWEST RETURN OF PAYNE AVENUE AND
\\1NCHESTER BLVD, ER ON PAYNE AVENUE FB 774, PG 49
ELEVATION =166.76' NAVO '88

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER UNE OF THE SANTA CLARA AND LOS GATOS ROAD, DISTANT THEREON S. o· 10' E. 200 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID CENTER LINE WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE 13.867 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY ANGELINA SANFILIPPO, A IIIDOW, TO VICTOR J. COLUMBINI, ET UX BY DEED DATED JULY 25, 1945 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 1945, COUNTY RECORDERS FILE NO 365278 AS AMENDED, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO BEJNG

THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED FROM IICTOR J. COLUMBINI, ET UX, TO CARL FERRANTI, ET UX, BY INSTRUMENT DATED JANUARY 23, 1946, AND RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1946, IN BOOK 1312 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 503, THENCE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 13.869 ACRE TRACT SOUTH 89' 44' EAST 181 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL 111TH THE CENTER LINE OF SANTA CLARA AND LOS GATOS ROAD SOUTH 0' 10' EAST 106 FEET: THENCE PARALLEL 111TH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 13.869 ACRE NORTH 89' 44' WEST 181 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SANTA CLARA AND LOS GATOS ROAD NORTH O' 10' WEST 106 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ANO BEING A PART OF SECTION 23, T.7S.R.1W. MOB&M.

APN: 279-17-02D

SURVEYOR'S NOTE

THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION ANO IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON.
7-17-2019
TY E. THOMAS DATE
P.L.S. 9309 EXP. 9/30/2020
DATE OF SURVEY 7/10/2019

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
1212 AND 1224 S WINCHESTER BLVD

SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
228-001
SHEET
1 OF
1 :~!,;~~I ;J!i
1] ~1 [ct~
:c-1 ;{tllJ :l-
:,J l'J I :l!, ~ ~'~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS • CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
&. BE\L-1 1110112019
&. BEll-2 051151202□
i z
.. '
-

PROPOSED

SURVEY PLAN
S.01
\0
,-;
0 I
0 N p...

C/)
Outdoor Sofa Seating and Table
CC-Bush Anemone
NC-Sword Fern
LC-Wild Rye
SD-Verba Buena
SM-Blue Chalk Sticks
QUE FRA 3 =----1

ITALIAN OAK
24" Box
Slat Wood Decking On Podium
PLACE 3" OF COMPOSTED, NON

FLOATABLE MULCH IN AREAS

BETWEEN STORM WATER

PLANTINGS AND SIDE SLOPES
2 CEROCC

WESTERN REDBUD
24" Box
STORM WATER-+--­

TREATMENT AREA
192 SF TOTAL
2 LAG IND
PLACE 3" OF COMPOSTED, NON

FLOATABLE MULCH IN AREAS

BETWEEN STORM WATER

PLANTINGS AND SIDE SLOPES
STORM WATER __ _

CREPE-MYRTLE
24" Box

TREATMENT AREA
192 SF TOTAL
CC-Bush Anemone
NC-Sword Fern
LC-Wild Rye
SD-Yerba Buena
SM-Blue Chalk Sticks
5 PRU CAR
LAUREL
24" Box
STORM WATER-~

TREATMENT AREA
82 SF TOTAL
ACE PLA 4

JAPANESE MAPLE
36" Box
. . . . ' . . . . . . .
ff◄fff•ftl•◄
=::-------:=:~--=:---=--;----;---:,~=e::1----------:,0,:--o-O __ F ~~:,;;;::~ffimr;;. 0 --.
• ln+----,11-,-,-h-,-,-crr.fl":7---crr,-n..,..,';1;
I • t ■ I
I . ,: I~ I I I I ~FFFFI'
1'11"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRE TRAVEL
tt---+---EMPLOYEE

BREAK ROOM
-0
I

ROOF OUTLINE
L __
MEN

LOCKER ROOM
---------·-7
KING
ROOM#101
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
L --<>
7 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_J
0 KING
ROOM#102

GUEST ATOR

UESTE ATOR
OFFICE
LOBBY
~+----Statue
~--------Precast Concrete Pavers
~--------Bike Rack
D
(10 Total Bike Parking Space)
KING
ROOM•103
KING
ROOM#104

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
C

RECEPTION
(CHECK-IN)
7 Bollard Lights
Precast Concrete Pavers
Architectural Threshold
KING
ROOM#105
OFFICE

ACCESIBLE QUEEN
ROOM#106
LOBBY
□
KING
ROOM•107
0 0
"T1
"T1
m m
(J)
I
0 7J
!10
EGRESS
STAIR
oox
~-+---Statue
KING
ROOM•108
---======

CUGGAGE

GUEST STORAGE

FIRE CONTFIOL FICIOM
J:,:t -;.,.,,
KING
ROOM#109
Concrete Sidewalk
Natural Gray Color
(4'*4' scoring)
Wooden Benc1~------~---Precast Concrete Pavers
Bike Rack
(10 Total Bike Parking Space)
KING
ROOM#110
KING
ROOM#111

ELECTRICAL ROOM

FIRE POMP ROOM

SECURITY
5 0
(/)

GIN BIL
~-,~~:~~I :J~~
•]~1[(1~
:c1 ;{1llJ :l-
: • J ~'JI :l ! ~ ~ ~ '•

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL • CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (4081921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS -CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& BE\/-j l llOH20l9
& CE_ll-0.5/i5l20.20
z D.
i A D.
z D. D. h.
.. ,
-

PROPOSED

LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.01
\0 ,....
0 I
0 C"'l
~
V)
II
-, _,o
□ □
QUEEN
ROOM#201
60'7"< 75' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL
-, ,
' --- -
0 ' ' ' ; , , ,
KING
ROOM#218
KING
ROOM#217
, , ,
-
0 '
-
I i\
' '
,
' '

HOUSE KEEPING

KITCHEN
/
~•--•-
!C
.. ------
0 ACCESSIBLE KING
ROOM#202
LOCKER
LAUREL
24" Box
GYM
_________________ _1 94'7"< 200' EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ' I , ,
[_ ----- ---, _J
RESTAURA~J,.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I --
1 I
I , ,,
/J
I
I
I
---;,-:-:/~ -- -.--
/
VOID
Outdoor Tables & Chairs ----~

WAS FIL

CALIFORNIA FAN PALM
18' TRUN K

TI MBER BAMBOO
15 GAL
LOCKER

ACCESIBLE QUEEN
ROOM#203 KING
ROOM#204
(': .:::, l ~ ,__J
KING
ROOM#205
~ ~~r-1-1'· _!7......_""""'"liiiiil
r
· ( 1,.
0 ~ •c r 11.....,. ..
llf'F~
Chaise Lounges ----~
-·- .
-
-- " --_:er---
J
:;;t~:-
,-,EC:.-~c--- -
r
--
- ~·-~=- - --- ----
--- -- ---
------- ---------------- ----------------
QUEEN
ROOM#216
3 8 \J::7 ~ q
MJCAO MICFl0
- . :<0
QUEEN
ROOM#215
L
QUEEN
ROOM#214
~---- Slat Wood Decking
on Podium
G Fl
KING
ROOM#206
/
11 ' I
L c
Sf EAM
ROOM
QUEEN
ROOM#213
QUEEN
ROOM#212
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

KING' KING
,,,,,,,-ROOM#207 ROOM#208
•coo
--
~
ii F\
~ 't
\ ---< ,
J
L
KING
ROOM#209
'
'!§
~J
_!ML -- -­
w
_ ___/
C'7
KING
ROOM#210
KING
ROOM#211
11 11
J
J
:~!,:~~I :J!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 :{•llJ :l-
: • ) l'J l :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monlared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
SAMCARPIRA@GMAILCOM
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921 -1882
Dradamaskari@GMAILCOM

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS - CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
maillo:SHILA.YASMEH@GMAILCOM

REVISIONS
11' REV-1 11/01/20 19_
4 flEIL2_ 05/J 5/202"
I\
' r
T
~
~
~
/,
/\
~
_\
~
'
l_sJ

PRDPDSED

LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.02
\0 ......
0 I
0 N

0...

V)
~
Wooden Bench
Concrete Sidewalk
Natural Gray Color
i Outdoor Statue w
i
w
"
~
Bollard Lights Bike Rack
Concrete Sidewalk
Natural Gray Color
Outdoor Statue
Bike Rack
Precast Concrete Pavers
Outdoor Tables & Chairs
Wooden Bench
Slat Wood Decking
on Podium
Chaise Lounges

JACUZZI
:.,!~:~~I ;f !i
•]~1[rt~
:t1 :{•llJ :l-
~ I J ~ '11 :l ! ~ ~ ~ ''

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& BE\l·l l 110112019
& BE\l-2 0511512□2 □
i z

PROPOSED

FURNITURE

IMAGERY
L.03
\0
~
0 I
0 N
~
Cf)
4 z
Q
5 w
"./ z a:
0 el
N
~
0 N
-w
~
L)
9 i'l z
:'i w
:! z
w
"
~
4 TREES

KEY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY
1 QUE FAA 24" BOX QUERCUS FRAINETTO ITALIAN OAK 3
2 CEROCC 24" BOX CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 2
3 GINBIL 24" BOX GINKGO BILOBA GINKGO 5
4 ACE PLA 36" BOX ACER PALMATUM JAPANESE MAPLE 4
5 LAG IND 24" BOX LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CREPE-MYRTLE 2
6 MAR ARB 24" BOX ARBUTUS U 'MARINA' STRAWBERRY TREE 5
7 PRU CAR 24" BOX PRUNUS CAROLINIANA LAUREL 8
8 WAS FIL 18" BOX WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA CALIFORNIA FAN PALM 6 9 BAM TEX 15 GAL BAMBUSA TEXTILIS TIMBER BAMBOO 11
NOTICE:

THE ABOVE PLANTS HAVE BEEN SELECTED AS BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OVERALL PLANTING DESIGN INTENT. THIS PLANT PALETTE IS BEING SUGGESTED FOR USE, BUT SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE USE OF OTHER APPROPRIATE PLANT MATERIAL.

OTHER COMPATIBLE VARIETIES OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS SHOULD BE SELECTED TO COMPLEMENT THE CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT.

WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANTS ON STORMWATERS AREA.
5 COMMENTS/ CALIFORNIA

SPACING NATIVE
NATIVE
MULTI
MULTI
STD. NATIVE

SHURBS COMMENTS/ CALIFORNIA

KEY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SPACING NATIVE
1 CT 1 GAL CEANOTHUS THYRSIFLORUS
AEPENS VICTORIA' BLUE BLOSSOM 60" O.C NATIVE
2 NC 1 GAL NEPI-IAOLEP1S CORDIFOUA SWORD FERN
3 cc 5GAL CAAPENTERIA CAUFOANICA BUSH ANEMONE NATIVE
4 RT 5GAL AOSEMARJNUS OFflCIANALIS TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY TUSGII.NBLLE'

GRASSES
5 LC 1 GAL l..EYMUS CONOENSATUS CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE
6 JP 1 GAL JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH 18" O.C NATIVE

GROUND COVER
7 SD 1 GAL SATIJREJA OOUGI..ASII YERBABUENA
8 SM 1 GAL SENECIO MNIDRAUSCAPE BLUE CHALK STICKS
VINES
9 BO 1 GAL BOUGANYIUEA
CALIFORNIA GOLD" BOUGANVILLEA
10 cc 1 GAL CL VTOSTOMA CALESTOIGES TRUMPET VINE
'5 GALLON UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
WUCOLS
RATING
MEDIUM
6 WUCOLS
RATING
LOW
LOW
LOW
:.,!~:~~I ;f !i
•]~1[rt~
:t1 :{•llJ :l-
~ I J ~ '11 :l ! ~ ~ ~ ''

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& BE\l·l l 110112019
& BE\l-2 0511512□2 □
i z

PROPOSED

PLANTING

IMAGERY
L.04
\0
~
0 I
0 N
~
Cf)
TREE NO.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 EXISTING TREES

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

CALIFORNIA
NATIVE

WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM NATIVE

WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM NATIVE

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK NATIVE

FRAXINUS AMERICANA ASH NON NATIVE

CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH NON NATIVE

CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH NON NATIVE

CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS WEEPING BOTTLE BRUSH NON NATIVE

LIGUSTRUM SP PRIVET NON NATIVE

LIGUSTRUM SP PRIVET NON NATIVE
DBH
(at 54·· above grade)
14""
18""
8""
11 •.
12··
15""
10··
8""
20··
\
' ',
'
C) '
~ '
_J ' =>
(D '
' ' ' '
0 Tree Health
(1 to 5)
3 3
3 4
3 3
3 4
4 NOTE : SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR TREE PROTECTION NOTES
• . -
■
- -•
AlllO>'OO~ TMYQ.
' .. ., ..
'
7 p
LJ
' ,,.
-
I
111-------H 11X
~ ... ~
1 1 !i---W"!ccccjttttt117
D
I
!
MR::; i I'""

ADCIIWIOI,
I
~ECEPTION
(CHECK-IN)
~ ,,,,,,,
, , , , 011\/d3d\/JSON\/} r-..,,,,,1
• Tree#1.~
]d\/JSON\/7 DBH "~. \ ~
T=,.,:;=::..:...c=='-'--7.~ '~~,l);l:;l;l:;i;(,A
DBH 18"
'
'

I I I I
' ' ' " '
-
■
-
_1--+----+1, l
~
~
FIRE fQMPROOO f--_J
_J
,--.! <{
3:
,-
_J
<{
~
-
D
' ' ""
'
-
' □
I
. ,....~ ~~ - - - - - - --1--I--- -·!-- - - -I--- ----- - - - - ----- -i--- -t-t - - -i--- -t-- - - -r-- - --- - - - - -- - - -I--- -I--- - - I
_jo J::>ON\/7
0 □
Tree Mitigation
TREE NO. BOTANICAL NAME
TO BE REMOVED 10 LIGUSTRUM SP
TO BE REMOVED 11 LIGUSTRUM SP
TO REMAIN 12 PERSEAAMERICANA
TO REMAIN 13 CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA
TO REMAIN 14 CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA
TO REMAIN 15 CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA
TO REMAIN 16 ROBINIA PSEUDOACACIAN
TO REMAIN 17 LIGUSTRUM SP
TO REMAIN 18 PERSEAAMERICANA
\
1~>;011
"'~---
0 EXISTING TREES

COMMON NAME

CALIFORNIA
NATIVE

PRIVET NON NATIVE

PRIVET NON NATIVE
AVOCADO Orchard

CAMPHOR NON NATIVE

CYPRESS NATIVE

CYPRESS NATIVE

LOCUST NATIVE

PRIVET NON NATIVE
AVOCADO Orchard
' If· ,.
-....--->
'
DBH Tree Health Tree Mitigation
(at 54·· above grade) (1 to 5)
15" 4 TO REMAIN
22· 4 TO REMAIN
9" 3 TO BE REMOVED
30" 4 TO BE REMOVED
36" 3 TO BE REMOVED
1 O" 4 TO BE REMOVED
25" 2 TO BE REMOVED
12· 4 TO BE REMOVED
34" 4 TO BE REMOVED
,_; ' .w, ~ Ll .. 'J IL I ,
~"' "'/ ~l \'.
' >
0 TREE MITIGATION ANALYSIS/PROGRAM
Using the chart below, there are a total of 32 mitigation trees required. 4-Native 38" + trees
1-Non-Native 38" + tree
1-Native 19"-38" tree
1-Non-Native 19"-38" tree
1-0rchard 38"+ tree
1-0rchard 19"-38" trees
Mitigation Requirement
20 4
3 2
3 0
32 The plan proposes 46 new trees total, meeting the mitigation requirement.

TREE Replacement Ratios
Circumference of
Type of Tree to be Removed
Tree to be Removed Noo-
NATIVE NATIVE Orchard
38 inches or more 5 1 41 3 1
19 to 38 inches 3:1 2:1 None
Less than 19" inches 1 :1 1 :1 None
x:x = tree reptacement to tree IOss ra1Jo
Minimum Size of Each
Replacement Tree
15-gallon
15-gallon
15-gallon
Note: Trees greater than or equal lo 38--inch circumference shall not be removed unless a Tree removal Permil or equivalent, has been approved for the removal of such trees. Fof f..tutti-Family residential, Corrwnercial a!ld Industrial pr(l)erties, a perm~ is required for rerroval of trees of any size A 38---irtch tree equal 12_1 inches inOiameter
A 24-lnch bo)( tree= two 15-galon trees.

Single Family and Two-ov,,etlIng properties may be mitigatea at a 1 :1 ratiO.

TREE DISPOSITION LEGEND
• EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
)( EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
TREE #N TREE NUMBER PER ARBORIST REPORT
0 PROPOSED TREE
:~!~;~~I ;f !~
•]~1[c1~
:c1 :{•llJ :l-
~ I J l'J' :l ! ~ ~ ~ '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL· CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 95110
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492·3249
mailto:[email protected]

REVISIONS
& BE\l·l l 110112019
& BE\l·2 0511512□2 □
i z
.. ,
..

PROPOSED

PLANTING

IMAGERY
L.05
\0
~
0 I
0 N
~
Cf)
>­a.

X
w

W'ILLIAMS ROAD
1212 & 1224 S. WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
"' <
~
:;;
"'
" J.
• ' . •
. -- - -•
. I
• •
. . .
• • •
• • • •
•
C
C:
•
•
I
I ~ I
.,
• • • •
• • I • •
•
-- -
-
,www

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
100.00 • r i "~\\ I/..?--- S· i i lh
1 I \Y J
\_ \ 1/ ~ o\ ~-, I www www www www 10600' www www~ # 9
0 ~ h1:: °!\ ~ ~ .
- -
...

WWW I ,... - ---- I
•
·-
I° I • I
- I
,www
---■1,1(7...lt .......,..fl L.JzdulLJ■■Jolf7_1\_ ....... • ...... ~ ...... -if1_1\_,mlt-..,_.ir7_f'\_ 0 -
X
X
1212 S WINCHESTER BLVD
APN 27917021
-

I I I I I I I I I I
. . .. • • .
•
•
•
• •
• • • •
-
• • • • • •
• . . . •
• • •
-
-
' .
-
•
• • • • • • • • • •
• • . .
•• •
I
•
I
•• • .
r.1,.i.-·--1'·- ~. ■! . .-.""'"'· . ...,·.,.. ~~-· .~ .... _·.*· ---·.,i--■ -·'!i-,,... -· .-+- 1•·-· _. -1■■• ... • -.--. -+.- ■1' --.... ~■1--· -■--- • • .....,.... '-■ r-,, . . ..., .... ·-·+.-· '!'. -. rt---;■•■--➔·- 'I"'"~.► ■!-rc·.,... ~-■• ■1--.---- -•• ""I'. _,...,..--.·~·-■1 - or.- .,•·--.... --,--· .➔• ➔ . ~ .r: ... - ~ ~· .• ·.. . • . . •
1 11--c.~•+-'~,-+--+----+--+---+-'--s---+~-+-~ •• -+-~+-~• -+--+---+~' - h.- +•~-+-- +c,-+-~•~.+-,-'+''--+--.,---+-. -+-'-+---+--+-~ .--+.- ,---+----+- --+-'-"-f--' -+-~.-+-~•-+--+--+-~• lf---c-0 -. ---+-"--+--•c4,-----f-----"-"-.-l-'-----o-+-+--+--+----+- -+~+-•~H • ., • • • " ., • • • • • • • • • " " • • • • .,• I ". . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 0 '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _____ L __ _
• -~
100.00'
• • -- . . • _._· __.____ - - ~ -· _ J;!'_ ~
:,,,:

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVAR~D--
•
•
_ . - _ ·._ .· J
106.00'
•
• •
•
I
I
b
•

PAYNE AVE
SITE

IJIQNIIY MAI'
ABBREVIATION:

NlS
ANGPT
ARV
ASB
BC
BO
B/W
C&G
CL
CR
DIP
ow
EASE
EP
ER
FG
FH
FL
FS
'law
HP
!NV
LAT
Angle Point
Air Release Valve
,1ggregate Subbase
5egin Curve
8/owoff Valve
Back Of Walk
Curb & Gutter
Centerline
Curb Ramp
Ductile Iron Pipe
Centerline Of Driveway
Easement
Edge Of Pavement
Enc/ Of Return
Finish Grade
Fire Hydrant
Flow Line
Fire Service
Front Of Wolk
Grade Break
High Point
Invert
Lateral
LP
Lt, Rt
PUE
PVC
RCP

RW, R/W
55 ssco
SOD!
SDMH
SSMH
SSLot
SW
TC
TDC
TRC
TVC
VCP
WLE
WM ws
WV
XING
Low Point
Left, R;ght
Public Utility Easement
Polyvinyl Chloride
Remforced Concrete Pipe
Right Of Way
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary_ Sewer Cleon Out
Storm Drain Drop Inlet
Storm Drain Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Lateral
Sidewalk
Top Of Curb
Top Of Depressed Curb
Top Of Rolled Curb
Top Of Vertical Curb
Vitrified Cloy Pipe
Water Line Easement
Water Meter
Water Service
Water Valve
Crossing
LEGEND:

DESCRIPTI ON

PROP ERTY LI NE

CENTERLI NE

CU RB AND GUTTER

SIDEWALK

STAND ARD HOODED INLET

CITY SURVEY MONUMENT

FI RE HYDRAN TS

ELECTROLIER

ELECTROLIER (R EMOVED /R ELOCA TED)

PU LL BOX

P G & E SERVICE POINT

SAN ITARY SEWER

STORM SEWER
WA TER
GAS

ELECTRIC CONDU IT

JOINT TRENCH

SAN ITARY MA NHOLE

STORM MAN HOLE

DR IVEWAY

HAN DICAP RAM P

NEW AC PAVEMENT

KEY TO C HANGES

STREET TREES

WATER M ETER

SITE ADDRESS
1220-1224 5. WINCHESTER BOULEVARD

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

TO BE CONST. EXISTI NG
(---- 1(----
"- @LARGE (3'X3') /\, @ LARGE
"
■
D'!
- G - G -
1$1
~<::::>
◊
8 A
n Q---o
□
[D
- G - C -
0 ©
8 BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE C[NT[RLIN[ OF WINCHESTER AVENUE PER PARCEL MAP MB 336/46, RECORDS OF SANTA C/ARITA COUNTY, CALIFORNi4 B[!NG.-NORTH 00' /0'00" WEST
DATUM NOTES:

CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA BENCHMARK POINT ND. 537
O[SCR/B[O AS.- TH[ Lffi[R "/" IN TH[ WORO '!RON" ON TOP OF CATCH BASIN SOUTHWEST RETURN OF PAYN[ AVENUE AND WINCHESTER BLVD, ER ON PAYN[ AV[NU[ FB 774, PG 49 £LEVAT!ON ~ 166.76' NAVO '88

SURVEY NOTES
SURVEY DATA PROV/0[0 BY OTHERS BASEO OFF SURVEY TAKEN 7/10/2019 . JMH WEISS NOT TO BE HELD Li48L£ FOR ANY 0/SCR[PANC/[5 BETWffN SUPPLIEO TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AND REAL WORLD CONDITIONS.

SCALE: In = 10'

SHEET INDEX
C/.0
C2.0
CJ.O
CJ. I
C4.0
C4. I
C4.2
C5.0

TITLE SHEET

DEMOLITION PIAN

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY PIAN

SECTIONS & DETAILS

STORMWATER CONTROL PIAN

STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS
MEDIA F!LTRA TION DETAILS

FIRE LAYOUT
:~!~;~~I ;J!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{tllJ :l-
: • J l'j l :l ! ~ ~. '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL · CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suile 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS· CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
maillo:[email protected]
~

REVISIONS
~
~
~
7\
I\
I\
I\
'\
I\
I\
I\

TITLE SHEET
C1 .0
DATE: 0610512020
\0 ,-,
0 ' 0
N
P...

VJ
I
I
I ~--------osc----------o sc----------oac- ---------osc---- ------- osc - ------ ---o sc ----------oac ----------oac - - -----~ - - oac - ---------osc----- ---~-- : fo

I -, -, -,
__ J ________ ~~-r,___,
' '
' ' ' ' ' ' -, EXISTING SHED
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'LIMIT 'OF' WORK=' ' '
Pf?OfEF{FY, Ll(vE, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' '
EXISTING Cuu '
' ' '
'
' '
-----'
EX 158 LF 6" SS
_ Q _
' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
'
'
' ' ' ' ' ' '
1 8/JILDING TO BE REUOVEO
'
I
'
'
I
L
I
GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES:
' '
'
'
'
' ' ' ' '
----'
1ST/NG J
SSMH
' '
'
' '
'
'
'
'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' '
' ,
' ' ' ,
□
,
' '
' ' '
,
"" L,1-r°'"',sn"'wc""--;CA1'1,;u-h:--'-' -,.JI WlAL -, " I ' 1'
' I
'
I
'
'
"
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
, '
"
'
'
'
'
'
' ' '
' ' '
'
'
'
EX 217 LF 15" SD

SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD
' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
'
1LDING TO BE REUOVED
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ,
,
'
'
'
WA1FR -
UN£ I ___ ._
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' '
' '
' ' ,
-----J -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
'> 7 : 7 : 7 : 7 : + :
'
'
'
,
' ' ' • LIM/7' OF WORK=
PRl9PER73/ !!.IN£
'
' ' ' ' ' '
,

I EXISTING CUU
" l(lAL
,
, 7
q . ~~
- .----...:a.!.---
' ' '
' '
,

1. CONTT?ACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING /JTIUTY SIZES ANO INVERTS. ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THESE PLANS ANO THE AEW SHALL6. MAINTAIN ORMWAY ACCESS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT ALL n1JES. PROV/OE TT?AFFIC SIGNAGE CONTROLS FOR ALL AREAS WHERE 12. ALL WORK IN THE PUBUC STREET REQUIRES AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ANO TT?AFFIC CONTROL Pt.AN.

TT?AFFIC WILL BE UMffED OUE TO OEJ.l0Lll10N ACTMTIES. BE COU/JUNICATED TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO fJO,KJLJTf()N, X
I
X
I
X
I
I
I
I
I
z 1J. All OFFS/TE lff/UTY BOXES TO REMAIN ANO TO BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 0 20'
SCALE: 1" 10'

2. ummrs SHOWN ON THIS Pl.AN FOR REFEl?ENC£ ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT U.S.A. {UNDEf?GROUND SEHVICE ALEKT AT 7. {800)-227-2600 FOR LOCATION OF ALL IJT/lfl1£S. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR UAY HIRE AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO LOCATE AND VERIFY All ONSITE /JT/UT!£S AT THOR OWN DISCRETION.

CONTRACTOR TO PROV/OE EROSION CONTROL BMP'S FOR ALL EXPOSED AREAS OUR/NG O£MOllT10N, INCL/JO/NG STOCKPILES. NOTES·.

CONS'TRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE CONS'fRfJCTED AT ACCESS POINTS TO 0/STURBED ARDIS.

J.

5. EXISTING ELECTRIOO ANO G4S FAC/l/T1ES MARKED AS TO f?EMAJN TO BE PROTECTED AT ALL nJIES DURING CONSTRUCTION ANO D£UOUTTON OPERATIONS. ALL PIPE AEVINOONIJENT ANO/OR REMOVAL TO BE COl,IPIBEO IN ACCORfJ4NCE WfTH TH£ RECOMUENOATIONS

8. AN AIR OUALITY PERMIT FOR OEMOLITJON IS REOUIREO FROM THE BolY AREA AIR OUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (BAAOMO). CONTACT 1.

PHONE NUMBER IS 415-771-6000.

OF THE GEOTECHN/CAJ.. ENGINEER. ALL REMOVAL AND 84Cl<RU OF EXISTING FACILmES TO BE SUP£RVfS£D BY THE GEOTECHN/CAJ.. 9. ALL 8/JILOINGS, CURBS, lffllff/ES. ANO PAVEMENT WITHIN UUIT OF WORK TO BE REUOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

ENGINEER.

All WA1FR VAJ..1.£5 TO BE UARKEO FOR LOCATION. CONTRACTOR TO UA/NrAJN RECORD OF All EXISTING VAJ..1.£5 ON-SITE REI.ATED TO ARE SUPPLY. NO HYDRANTS SHALL BE REUOVED UNLESS NOTED ON THIS Pt.AN.

SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR OPTION OF UATERfAL RECYCUNC INCLUDING ASPHALT, CONCRETE, ANO BASE U4TERfAL.

10. DAMAGED CURB, G/JTTER, AND S/OEWALK WfTHIN THE PIJBUC RIGHT OF WAY LONG PROPERTY'S FRONTAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE NEAREST SCORE MARK IN A UANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE CflY ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNEE.

11. ALL SAN/TA.RY SEWER MAIN AND LATERALS AS SHOWN TO BE ABANDONED SHALL BE OONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNION SANITARY DISTRICT REOUIREU£NTS.

2. PHYSICAL ITEAIS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE UUITED TO THOSE SURFACE ITEMS VISIBLE AS OF THE OAT£ OF THIS S/JRVD' ANO FROM AVA/l.ABLE RECORD DATA S/J85/JRFACE OBJECTS, IF ANY. UAY NOT BE SHOWN. ~O SUBSURFACE 08/ECTS M4Y INCLUDE, EJ(fT ARE NOT UM/TED TO, UNDERGROUND, UTIUTY LINES, lff/UTY VAULTS, CONCRETE FOOTINGS, SLABS. SHORING, STRUCTURAL PILES, PIPING, UNDERGROUND TANKS, ANO ANY OfflER SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES NOT REVELED BY A SURFACE INSPECTION.

TREE TRUNK LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. TRESS THAT CROSS A PROPERTY LINE AT GROUND LEVEL SHOULD BE CONS/OER£O TO BE JOINT OWNED BY THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS. CONSULT AN ARBOR/ST FOR DETAILS.

LEGEND
[j]
rn
[]
' '\, '\, '\, ' '\. '\. '\. '\.

TO 8£ REUOVEO

TO BE RELOCATED
TO REl,WN
lff/UTY TO BE REUOVEO
UMIT OF OEJJOllT/ON

CONCRETE TO BE OEUOLISHEO

ASPHALT DEEPLIFT AT PROJECT FRONTAGE

LANDSCAPING TO BE DEMOUSHED

TREE TO BE REMOVED
:~!~;~~I ;J!~
1]~1[c1~
:c1 ;{tllJ :l-
: • J l'j l :l ! ~ ~. '~

CARPIRA DESIGN GROUP
Sam Monfared
30025 ALICIA PKWY
LAGUNA NIGUEL - CA 92677
TEL: (310) 795-4009
[email protected]
OWNER
Adam Askari
2881 Hemlock Ave. San Jose
TEL: (408) 921-1882
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER
JMH WEISS, INC.
1731 Technology Drive, Suite 880
San Jose, CA 9511 O
TEL: (408) 790-4982
[email protected]

LANDSCAPE DESIGNER

SHILA YASMEH
628 N. MAPLE DR. BEVERLY
HILLS - CA 90210
TEL: (650) 492-3249
mailto:[email protected]
~

REVISIONS
~
~
~
7\
I\
I\
I\
'\
I\
I\
I\

DEMOLITION
PLAN
C2 ■ 0
DATE: 06/05/2020
\0 ,....,
0 ' 0
N
P-<
VJ
163.97
G4RACE LOCATED
J,O<XJ GA/.l.ON
•
I •
. I
l+---h~"""~""1 I
. I 1 , I 1, I 1llWillill!l! , ·
I
1 1 IIJPA~---+1 ,I 1 !1
. I I I I I I
_/,
GREASE lfflERCEPTOR (IL-.'! ,

AREA DRAIN
RIM 163.98
/NV 160.68
l
GARAGE

OUTLINE

2.0.0· • • •
• • " • " • .
3" GAS
6" GAS
12" WATER
•
«I ..•
•
X
..
"
-/-