CITY OF SAN JOSE
1343 The Alameda
MASTER PLAN REPORT
August 2022
1 | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. Purpose & Background .................................................................................................3
1.2. Master Plan Overview...................................................................................................4
1.3. Master Plan Process.......................................................................................................5 SECTION 2: SITE SETTING
2.1. Context - Regional..........................................................................................................7
2.2. Context - The Park and Trail System .........................................................................8
2.3. Context - Neighborhood...............................................................................................9
2.4. Context - Site Analysis .................................................................................................12
2.5. Opportunities and Constraints ....................................................................................19
SECTION 3: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1. General............................................................................................................................ .21
3.2. Alignment to Activate SJ Guiding Principles..............................................................21
3.3. Environmental Resources ...............................................................................................22
3.4. Land Use ..........................................................................................................................22
3.5. Aesthetic.................................................................................................................. .........23
SECTION 4: PLANNING PROCESS
4.1. Project Start Up ..............................................................................................................25
4.2. Technical Advisory Committee .....................................................................................25
4.3. Community Outreach Objectives ................................................................................25
4.4. Community Outreach Process & Outcomes ...............................................................26
4.5. Master Plan Refinement ...............................................................................................30
4.6. Diagrammatic Planning ................................................................................................ 31
4.7. Environmental Analysis and Clearance .....................................................................31
SECTION 5: INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
5.1. Property Ownership.......................................................................................................33
5.2. Environmental Requirements ........................................................................................33
5.3. Agency Requirements.....................................................................................................33
5.4. Operational Requirements............................................................................................34
5.5. Maintenance Requirements...........................................................................................34
SECTION 6: PARK DEVELOPMENT
6.1. Park Design......................................................................................................................3 7
6.2. Opportunities and Constraints......................................................................................37
6.3. Circulation.........................................................................................................................37
6.4. Education..........................................................................................................................37
6.5. Active SJ Goals......................................................................................................... ......38
6.6. Articulating Spaces.........................................................................................................3 8
6.7. Palettes and Design Themes.........................................................................................3 8
6.8. Site Furnishings ...............................................................................................................39
2 | P a g e
SECTION 7: DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
7.1. Summary of Improvements............................................................................................41
7.2. Street Crossings........................................................................................................ .......41
7.3. Planting.............................................................................................................................41
7.4. Miscellaneous Site Amenities.........................................................................................41
7.5. Maintenance.....................................................................................................................42
SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTATION
8.1. Estimated Hard Cost.......................................................................................................44
8.2. Estimated Soft Cost.........................................................................................................44
8.3. Priorities and Phasing.....................................................................................................44
8.4. Ongoing Operational Costs.......................................................................................... 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................45
APPENDIX .....................................................................................................................................................46
Appendix A Community Survey Results
• 1st Online Survey Results
• 2nd Online Survey Results
• 3rd Online Survey Results
Appendix B Cost Estimate
• Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Appendix C PRC Engagement
• PRC Meeting Minutes
Appendix D CEQA
• Statement of Exemption
• Project Description with Avoidance Measures
• Vibration Calculations
• SOIS Compliance Analysis Memo with Appendix
3 | P a g e
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4 | P a g e
1.1. PURPOSE & BACKGROUND
Purpose
The Master Plan for 1343 The Alameda is intended to provide the City of San Jose with a framework for future improvements and redevelopment of the site to deliver a new urban pocket park. This Document catalogs the extensive public feedback that was received during the process, describes the design approach that the City and consultants used to develop a preferred Master Plan, and lays out a plan for future enhancements to this highly valued public space. With consideration for site’s historic character and well-established urban greenspace, as well as its adjacency to downtown San Jose, this Master Plan works to strike a balance between community gathering space and both active and passive recreation opportunities.
Existing Historic Buildings Next to the Project Site
Background
The site located at 1343 The Alameda currently consists of a paved parking lot about 7,296 square feet bounded by the Alameda to the north, Hanchett Avenue to the east and commercial businesses to the west and south. The surrounding land to the west of The Alameda consists of single-family residential properties with several newer large apartment and townhome complexes along the Almeda.
Existing Site Condition – Viewed from site towards the right back side of building
5 | P a g e
Based on a review of historical information, the first use of the site occurred in the late 1800s when the site was part of the Agricultural Park with orchards and picnic grounds, horse racing track, a velodrome and baseball fields1. The site was used from the mid-1930s to late 1960s as a gas station. From the late 1960s to early 2000s the site was vacant and used for parking. In the early 2000s, the City of San Jose Redevelopment Agency purchased the property and constructed a pav ed parking lot on the site that serves nearby businesses. The Redevelopment Agency sold the site to Inwalle Properties in late 2017. In 2018, City of San Jose obtained ownership of this site with intent to develop it as a park to comply with The Alameda Urban Village Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on December 13, 2016.
Site Historic Background
1.2. MASTER PLAN OVERVIEW
The project site is within The Alameda Urban Village and also within the Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area, a local conservation area. The Park at 1343 The Alameda Master Plan has been prepared by the City of San Jose to further the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. This strategy through site study, several community surveys, workshops and questionnaires to learn about the community’s needs with respect to the development of urban park & recreational facilities and address to the prioritization of possibilities within a cohesive vision.
Today, as San Jose focuses on the design of denser development patterns in an urban setting, this small parcel is an opportunity to transform the urban vacant space as a pocket park and provide:
• A walkable and accessible community space to gather and socialize. • Safe and well-maintained place with facilities that meet the diverse needs of a growing community. • A space that reflects the cultural history of the community. • Biodiversity through native landscaping and low water use plants. • Educational opportunities through sustainable design. • A positive community image.
1 Shasta-Hanchett Park, Historic Walking Tour
The Fredericksburg Brewery
Site
Sanborn Map
Site
6 | P a g e
1.3. MASTER PLAN PROCESS
Planning Process
The Plan was developed through site inventories of cultural, physical, and biological aspects and the active participation of staff, neighborhood association, residents, business owners, and elected officials through their participation in online workshops, polls, and online surveys.
This process included three online workshops and surveys which were held in April, July, and November 2021 to engage the stakeholders on identifying site issues, challenges, and opportunities that guided and informed the development of the Master Plan. Approximate 200 community members provided opinions and input on the formation of this plan.
Community Outreach Participants Survey
1st Online Workshop in April 35 167
2nd Online Workshop in July 14 97
3rd Online Workshop in November 20 66
The Park, Recreation and Neighborhood Services staff played a significant role in developing and revising the Plan. Using trend analyses, data derived from the community outreach activities, and research on comparable communities, the Project Design Team worked with The Park, Recreation and Neighborhood Services staff to develop the resultant plan and priorities.
The Plan will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and City Council prior to it’s review and approval in 2022.
Implementation
This Plan will serve as a framework for future decision making, priority setting, and budgeting. The vision and goals include d in the plan describe a desired future for a neighborhood opportunity for passive and active recreation while providing the Department the flexibility it needs to achieve its goals.
7 | P a g e
SECTION 2: SITE SETTING
8 | P a g e
2.1. CONTEXT – REGIONAL
Figure 1: The Park at 1343 The Alameda Plan Context – Regional Scale City of San Jose, CA Central San Jose
San Jose is the county seat of Santa Clara County, California, U.S. The city lies in the Santa Clara Valley along Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River, about 50 miles southeast of San Francisco. The city, located just southeast of San Francisco Bay, sprawls over a broad floodplain that gradually slopes upward toward more rugged te rrain to the east and south. With its semiarid climate, San Jose is known for its sunny, mild weather.
San Jose was founded on November 29, 1777, as the Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe, the first civil settlement founded by the Spanish in California. During the Spanish colonial and Mexican periods, it supplied wheat, vegetables, and cattle to the military garrisons at Monterey and San Francisco. In March 1850 San Jose became the first chartered city in California, by which time it had become a bustling trade depot for the goldfields east of Sacramento. In 1864 the coming of the railroad from San Francisco gave San Jose improved trade connections and enabled the produce of nearby farms to be readily shipped to San Francisco. The city annexed land at a rapid rate, more than tripling its area between 1960 and 2000. San Jose today is the center of Silicone Valley, a major technology hub.
San Jose, like most of the Bay Area, has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate, with warm to hot, dry summers and mild to cool, wet winters. San Jose averages 301 days of sunshine and annual mean temperature of 60.5 °F.
The citizenry has long been ethnically diverse, with large and growing Asian and Hispanic communities that combined now constitute some three-fifths of the total population.
San Jose has many historic areas. Late 19th century and early 20th century styles exist in neighborhoods such as Hanchett Park, Naglee Park, Rose Garden, and Willow Glen (including Palm Haven). Hanchett Park was subdivided and ‘most homes were built between 1915 and 1930, many in the Craftsman bungalow, Mission, and Spanish Eclectic Styles. A few Prairie style homes are scattered in the neighborhood as well.’ 2
2 Shasta-Hanchett Park, Historic Walking Tour
9 | P a g e
2.2. CONTEXT – THE PARK AND TRAIL SYSTEM
The project site is withing walking distance of several parks as illustrated in Figure 2. Recreational opportunities within a 30 minute walk include the Municipal Rose Garden, school age and pre-school children’s play areas, soccer fields, half basketball and a dog park. Trail linkages are available as the site is less than one mile from both the Guadalupe River Trail System an d the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The project site is on The Alameda which includes Bike lanes on the street linking the project si te with the Santa Clara Valley Bikeways system. Bus 522 offered by the Valley Transportation Authority with scheduled stops at the project site everyday the whole year providing access to the VTA network.
Figure 2: The Park System Around The Site
10 | P a g e
2.3. CONTEXT – THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Figure 3: The Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood
The Shasta Hanchett Park neighborhood in San Jose, California, is located just west of the downtown area. The neighborhood includes four areas: Shasta Hanchett Park, Garden Alameda, St. Leo’s, and Cahill Park. Shasta Hanchett Park is a unique combination of residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The Alameda, which bisects Shasta Hanchett Park, is part of El Camino Real, Spanish for the “Royal Road” or “King’s Highway,” the first true road in California.
Between 1859 and 1901 the 76 acres of land situated between The Alameda, Race Street, Park Avenue, and Hester Avenue was known as Agricultural Park. The park served as the county fairgrounds and hosted livestock fairs, fancy dress balls, traveling circuses, and exhibitions for everything from fruit to quilts. It included a horseracing track, bicycle velodrome ( track), baseball fields, and picnic grounds.
In 1905 Lewis E. Hanchett acquired the former Agricultural Park from the Peninsula Land & Development Company. He decided to sub-divide the land to develop a “desirable” neighborhood.
11 | P a g e
These mostly single-family residences date from ca. 1906 to 1935 and include Queen Anne, Craftsman Bungalow, and Spanish Mission Colonial Revival styles as well as several Prairie style in Hanchett Park.
Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood detailed profile (source from city-data)
12 | P a g e
2.4. CONTEXT – SITE ANALYSIS
Figure 4: The Site Location
The site currently consists of a paved parking lot about 7,296 square feet bounded by the Alameda to the north, Hanchett Avenue to the east and commercial businesses to the west and south. The surrounding land to the west of The Alameda consists of single-family residential properties with several newer large apartment and townhome complexes off the Almeda.
13 | P a g e
Figure 5: Site Existing Conditions
2.4.1. Stewardship
The site is currently a paved parking lot that serves the nearby commercial business. The adjacent building to the North of t he parking lot has rear doors for employees to enter from the parking lot. Currently the private business is using the lot to store planters for the adjacent indoor furnishing businesses and a solid waste dumpster adjacent to the building.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose retained SCS Engineer to conduct a preliminary Phase 2 ESA for the site during February 2002. Based on the results of assessment, the service station historically located on the property does not appear to have significantly impacted the property. However, buried metallic debris is located on the property.
The Environmental Services Department has performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the site in May 2018. The Phase 1 ESA showed only one area of potential concern, a gas station that occupied the property from the mid- 1930s. Previous soil, soil gas, and groundwater sampling did not show any significant contamination that would indicate a potential health and safety concern to site users or the environment. Two underground surveys to determine if the underground storage tanks are still located on property did not show any evidence the tanks remain on the property. Based upon these findings, Environmental Services staff does not have objections or concerns with developing the site as a park.
The May 2018 Phase 1 ESA and the site were revisited January 2022, and a limited update was provided to confirm that the site did not show change to the potential environmental conditions that warrant an updated Phase 1 ESA.
14 | P a g e
2.4.2. Nature
Currently, there are a total of 10 trees on-site (including two street trees on The Alameda and four streets on Hanchett Avenue). The trees within site and on Hanchett Avenue sidewalk are stressed due to lack of growing space and insufficient irrigation and to be considered to replaced with new trees in amended soil with expanded available soil capacity for roots and automatic irrigation provided. The mature London plane trees on The Alameda sidewalk are well planted and to be preserved during the construction.
Tree on site Tree on site Tree on Hanchett Avenue Sidewalk Tree on The Alameda Sidewalk
15 | P a g e
2.4.3. Equity and Access
The project site is within the commercial zone and adjacent to single family and high-density housing. See 2.3 Context – Neighborhood for more information on the demographics of the area. Refer to 2.2 Context - Park and Trail System for more information on the linkages to the trails, parks, bikeway and bus systems.
Figure 6: 10 Minutes Walking Distance Map
16 | P a g e
Figure 7: Site Existing Conditions – Transportation Network
Figure 8: Site Existing Conditions – Pedestrian Route Network
Park is located with multiple means of access and adjacency to a variety of user groups. An existing bus stop on The Alameda near Hanchett Ave provides linkages to mass transit.
17 | P a g e
Figure 9: Site Existing Conditions – Site Context
2.4.4. Identity
Hanchett Park, originally part of the fairgrounds, was surveyed in 1906 and opened in 1907. The Hester District dates to 1893 and included the former Gardner District (annexed 1911). The Hester-Hanchett-College Park district was annexed to the City of San José in 1925. These mostly single-family residences date from ca. 1906 to 1935 and include Queen Anne, Craftsman Bungalow, and Spanish Mission Colonial Revival styles as well as several Prairie style in Hanchett Park. The Hanchett Park neighborhood retains some of the best mix of Prairie, Spanish Revival and, Craftsman residences in San José. In addition, Martin Avenue between Park Avenue and The Alameda includes City of San José Heritage Trees - 80 Mexican Fan Palms.’ 3 3 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/historic- preservation/historic-districts-areas/hanchett-hester-park-conservation-area
18 | P a g e
2.4.5. Public Life
There are varies events have been held at the Hanchett Shasta neighborhood, such as Creater Rose Garden farmers market, second Saturdays on the Alameda, Rose White and blue Parade, Stroll the Alemeda, and other pop-up events.
19 | P a g e
2.5. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
1. Opportunities:
• Mature Trees along The Alameda.
• Located along public transit routes with good pedestrian and cycling opportunities. • Ideal size for pocket park development.
• High visibility for security and to activate the site. • Located along a commercial corridor with residential proximity. • Easy to access to both commercial and residential areas. • Located within a historic district.
• Existing Infrastructure available to site.
2. Constraints:
• The site, next to a major surface arterial is subject to traffic noise and traffic safety concerns. • No shade on site.
• Residential size lot.
• Noise/dust issues due to street adjacency.
• Residential use withing 100 feet.
• Limited parking.
Inspiration images shared as part of the community workshop process.
20 | P a g e
SECTION 3: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
21 | P a g e
3.1. GENERAL
Goals
▪ Provide safe and well-maintained parks and facilities that meet the diverse needs.
▪ Celebrate San Jose’s cultural heritage and encourage community through provision of culturally sensitive and competent programs, services, and events.
▪ Develop and provide recreational facilities and programs that support health and wellness and personal development.
▪ Develop and partner with other disciplines to meet community needs.
▪ Encourage and support public involvement in park planning, design, and advocacy.
▪ Create and enhance a positive community image and be a key contributor to economic development activities.
3.2. ALIGNMENT TO ACTIVATE SJ GUDING PRINCIPLES
Stewardship
▪ We Take Care of What We Have and Invest for the Future.
Nature
▪ We Protect, Preserve and Promote Natural Areas for All People.
Equity and Access
▪ We Embrace People of All Ages, Cultures and Abilities.
Identity
▪ We Aim to be a Premier Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services System .
Public Life
▪ Promote Community Spaces for a Safe, Fun and Healthy San José.
The guiding principles listed above manifest in the master plan process and are reflected in the preferred plan. Each princi ple is addressed consistent with the City’s values and as reflected by the community through the engagement process.
3.2.1. Stewardship
Stewardship program should reflect the diversity of the community. Park stewards with different backgrounds will have unique ideas and services to offer. Incorporating a variety of artistic, cultural, and recreational interests allows for park programming that is fresh and most likely to retain the community’s continued engagement with the park.
3.2.2. Equity and Access
Park and programs are physically accessible to all community members; designed to meet community needs and promote inclusive design strategies. Park is located with multiple means of access and adjacency to a variety of user groups. An existing bus stop on The Alameda near Hanchett Ave provides linkages to mass transit.
3.2.3. Nature
The concept plan provides an urban green space expansion with focus on native & low water use planting design and a pollinator garden to promote biodiversity. Sustainable elements such as rain gardens and structural soil area also
22 | P a g e
incorporated to promote healthy tree development for carbon sequestration, urban cooling provided by the tree canopy, healthy waterways and groundwater surcharge.
3.2.4. Identity
Historic context with highly diverse multicultural population, located at the union of commercial vibrancy and neighborhood residential. Support historic context by applying the materials and textures of the adjacent existing architectural within the neighborhood to the site. Gathering spaces are provided for the community to make the space a reflection of themselves and allow the space to be used in a flexible way as the community changes and evolves the programming is equally adaptable.
3.2.5. Public Life
Design concepts provide opportunities with varying seating types; sun & shade areas; drinking fountain & trash receptacles; pop-up event stage; widen and open at the entrances; lighting for security after dusk and grove seating for dining.
The arts and culture are essential elements in the character and quality of life in the vibrant San José community. A pocket park would support the social and family networks that already exist within the area.
3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Refer to Appendix D– CEQA
3.4. LAND USE
The land use of the site will accommodate to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan and the Alameda Urban Village Plan. It identifies that the site will be designated as a floating urban park and plaza and intended to be programmed for low intensity open space uses.
(Source from the Alameda Urban Village Plan)
Site
23 | P a g e
3.5. AESTHETIC
Durable material for safety and maintainability are included in the master plan. The aesthetic is a reflection of the evolution of the neighborhood from eclectic traditional style of Hanchett-Shasta subdivision and the historical technological hub for advancement.
As a leader in technology from as early as 1881 San Jose has embraced the advancements of the day illustrated by the adoption of the light tower erected at the intersection of Market Street and Santa Clara Streets. San Jose was the only City at the time lighted by electricity.
The geometric inspiration of the site plan is driven by the idea of energy and the City’s early adoption of new technologies.
Star bursts like the sun and patterns similar to lightning are represented in the pavement as a nod to the energy of San Jos e.
These symbols are complimented by the use of traditional materials such as brick that represents the fabric of the neighborhood.
Figure 10: Vintage Postcard
24 | P a g e
SECTION 4: PLANNING PROCESS & OUTCOMES
25 | P a g e
4.1. PROJECT START UP
In 2014, the Hanchett Neighborhood Association planned to develop a public space at this site and requested a proposal for design services. The grass root efforts of the community were recognized by the City. After that, the City prepared The Alameda Urban Village Plan in 2016, which programed the site as a pocket park and was adopted by City Council in 2018.
The Alameda Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment followed in 2018. Currently, City is in contract with Verde Design to provide Master Plan and Schematic Design services. Next steps will be to progress with construction documents.
Slide from 2014 design study
4.2. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The TAC to be consulted as needed along the design period through to implementation phase.
4.3. COMMUNITY OUTREACH OBJECTIVES
City Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services staff and Verde Design group prepared an outline of the various workshops that would be the means for conducting an open and effective dialog with the community about the future vision for 1343 The Alameda. With the goal of obtaining as much input as possible from park users within a transparent public process, the focus was on creating as many opportunities, in as many ways possible, to reach out and connect with the public. This outreach process considered the Covid-19 pandemic and busy lives of locals in a technological age. Project information and meeting notifications were posted across on-line media platforms. To help folks access these sites, various pieces of collateral were created throughout the outreach process. Posters were made to alert park users of upcoming meetings and included web addresses to access the on-line workshops and surveys as well as a QR Code for quick connection. Each public meeting offered attendees online polls and surveys. Postcard meeting notices were also created and mailed to residents for the workshops and included social media access information.
This on-line presence created a varied set of opportunities for park users to participate, and therefore, a well -rounded assortment of input from the public at large could be heard. The outreach strategy encouraged public involvement. Activities and methods were planned to ensure the participation of a diverse cross-section of the city’s population. Since San Jose’s multilingual population is relatively large, flyers were distributed in both Spanish and English to ensure community members were notified in their preferred language. Language translation services were offered for workshops but no requests w ere received. The following tools were implemented so that the community’s voices can be heard and that the City and design team could reflect on the community input and allow that to guide the design process and develop project specific Opportunities and Constraints.
26 | P a g e
• Community workshops
The purpose of public outreach was to receive feedback and input from park users by engaging them in a meaningful, friendly, and creative manner that encourages involvement and makes them feel comfortable participating in the process. The Hanchett Park Master Plan Update involved three public workshops. Workshop #1 was intended to discover, through discussion, the key goals, and objectives to inspire the Master Plan Update, as well as key features that were most important to the community. Workshop #2 brought the community back to discover the way in which their input contributed to the creation of three alternative Master Plan designs, and for their assistance in choosing a preferred features and alternative to move forward. Workshop #3 provided park users with the opportunity to view the Preferred Plan, as it will be presented to the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council. The project will be presented in a public meeting to present the preferred plan, the project’s design process and environmental review, while also allowing for public comment s.
• Facility Naming
The park name adoption was brought up from the workshop #1 and was accepted through the public survey or by emailing City staff. The names were reflected of:
o Geographic location
o Prominent geographic feature or local reference point o Adjoining subdivision/community
o Historical event
o A deceased individual (Deceased at least 5 years)
• Online Survey
Online surveys were provided all workshop events. Survey No.1 focused on community engagement and developing the general ideas of design, theme and programming. The Survey No. 2 was intended to help further develop the vision for Park at 1343 The Alameda and asked the community to consider each design element or amenity separately and, asked about their preferred overall design option. Survey No.3 was intended to validate the preferred plan as it meets community’s needs, and further consideration on the preferred plan for develop the final concept. All three surveys encouraged participants to write additional comments and suggestions on the end of the survey.
The following section describes in more detail the process and outcome of each public outreach event. All materials used at the public meetings can be found in the Appendix section of this document.
4.4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROCESS & OUTCOMES
The public meetings were well attended, and the feedback received resulted in a clear set of potential objectives and planning concepts for Park at 1343 The Alameda’s future. The importance of the community’s feedback cannot be over- looked. Throughout the series of workshops and surveys, a wide variety of residents contributed valuable input that collectively gave the City an understanding of the citizen’s wishes and concerns. Many individuals as well as special int erest groups provided a cross- section of opinions that were critical to framing the overall vision.
4.4.1. Workshop No.1 & Survey No.1
On April 15th, 2021, City staff and Verde Design facilitated the first online public workshop with community members including representation from the Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood residents. A presentation of background information, pocket park recognition, and opportunities and constraints were made, a list of desirable features and general questions were taken and answered. During the workshop, a series of poll exercises were provided to engage participants to vote for their preferred theme of park, features & programs. Also, City staff facilitated the first step of the park naming adoption process and previewed the online survey questions. The online survey was available from the date of workshop number 1 to April 20th, 2021.
27 | P a g e
The ‘Pocket Park’ was introduced, and few precedent images were presented during workshop #1.
The online survey questions were previewed during workshop #1.
4.4.1.2. Summary of Outcomes
The Survey No.1 engaged 167 survey respondents.
See Appendix A – Community Survey Results for detailed analysis of Workshop #1.
28 | P a g e
A pop-up event held on site over the Independence Day 2021weekend.
4.4.2. Workshop No.2
Based on community and City feedback from the first workshop, Verde Design (VDI) developed a set of objectives and Design concepts that served as a design guide for the Master Plan. During Workshop #2 on July 12th, 2021, VDI presented two alternative concept plans for discussion and review. A brief overview of the public outreach process thus far helped workshop attendees see how public input had informed the concept alternatives. City staff facilitated the park naming process and interpreted the name nominations received during survey No.1, The second online survey was made available from the date of workshop #2 to July 27th, 2021.
Figure 11: Two Alternative Concept Plans
29 | P a g e
4.4.2.1. Community Workshop No.2
Two alternative concepts were developed per 1st online workshop & survey results and comments.
The City staff presented the name nominations received from survey No.1.
4.4.2.2. Summary of Outcomes
The workshop #2 was well attended and the feedback received resulted in a clear set of potential objectives and planning programs for Park at 1343 The Alameda.
The Survey No. 2 engaged 97 survey respondents.
See Appendix A – Community Survey Results for detailed analysis of Workshop #2.
4.4.3. Community Workshop No.3
On November 17th, 2021, VDI and City Staff held the third workshop with community. This workshop was intended to present the Master Plan and seek final comments on refined plan.
4.4.3.1. Workshop No.3 & Survey No.3
Figure 12: Preferred Concept
30 | P a g e
Figure 13: The Articulating Areas & Functionalities
4.4.3.2. Summary of Outcomes
A final list of objectives and programs were developed and served as the guide for creating the master plan. The Appendix A detailed input.
The Survey No. 3 engaged 66 survey respondents.
See Appendix A – Community Survey Results for detailed analysis of Workshop #3.
4.5. MASTER PLAN REFINEMENT
The two initial alternatives were reviewed by City and Community following Workshops #2 and preferred concept was reviewed from Workshop #3.
Public input on these alternatives had a significant impact on the resulting outcome. Participant’s feedback on al l the individual features helped to shape the preferred plan, while shade structures, grove seating and pollinator garden made strong cases for their respective interests. With the third online survey results and City staff internal review, both had made final recommendations on a preferred concept with which to move forward. Those recommendations included:
• Replace a game table with Kids play Table
• Change the sensory play equipment to low-decibel product • Add Shade tree at the game zone
With a thorough summary of comments and resulting recommendations from City review, VDI then worked with City staff to develop a final concept for Park at 1343 The Alameda. This plan was a result of the Master Plan Goals and Objectives and feedback from the City and the general public
With a thorough summary of comments and resulting recommendations from City review, VDI then worked with City staff to develop a final concept for the Park at 1343 The Alameda. This plan was a result of the Master Plan Goals and Objectives and feedback from the City and the general public.
31 | P a g e
Figure 14: Design Resolution Based on Input at Workshop No.3
4.6. DIAGRAMMATIC PLANNING
The diagrammatic planning has been described in previous sub-sections, refer to community outreach process & outcomes and master plan refinement.
4.7. ENVIROMENTAL ANALYSIS AND CLEARANCE
The master plan is provided concurrent with the review and approval of the environmental document. See Appendix D – CEQA for detailed environmental analysis and clearance.
32 | P a g e
SECTION 5: INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
33 | P a g e
5.1. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The City of San Jose Redvelopment Agency purchased the site and constructed the current day paved parking lot in 2002.
The parcel was then sold and repurchased by the City of San Jose in 2018. The City of San Jose the current owner of this site and with intent to develop it as a pocket park.
5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIRMENTS
The environmental setting of the site should create a sustainable and beautiful landscape that attracts the attention of park users throughout the year and provides environmental benefits, like urban cooling and habitat for birds and insects. Select plant material that requires little maintenance and is appropriate for the specific weather conditions at the site . The current site is primarily all impervious surface with storm water run-off into the City system offsite. The proposed park will treat and infiltrate the majority of stormwater onsite with any surplus being treated and released.
5.3. AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
This park site is entirely upon City-owned property and to be designated as parkland. There are no shared use or inter - agency requirements at this park site.
5.4. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
5.4.1. Programming Needs
This park site is located in large, highly developed urban areas and promoted as a place of refuge from the hustle and bustle of city life. Primarily a rest area with tables and seating and include some aspects of natural landscape such as trees, shrubs, and groundcover features. The program elements can be integrated as designated seating or picnic areas separate from were active recreation, also the accessible access to the site should be promoted for those who are less physically active but still want to spend time outdoor in a safe and communal space.
5.4.2. Event Space
The park site should accommodate to the local events and provide a sufficient space and utilities as needed. A flexible space or platform can be considered for events use as well as group seating.
5.4.3. Special Considerations
The park site design should take a consideration to CPTED and support for green infrastructure.
CPTED
• Implement community events, workshops, volunteer days, and other events at the park to up attendance and make it an active space.
• Increase the presence of park staff and encourage the local police department to increase their presence in the area as well.
• Designate community stewards to keep an eye on the park and report any problems to the police and maintenance staff.
Support for green infrastructure
• Make the benefits of green infrastructure more accessible to neighbors and park supporters, limit technical jargon and use graphics and relatable examples.
• Outline a local issue affecting neighborhood that the green infrastructure will help to fix (i.e., using permeable surfaces in the park can reduce the risk of nearby flood damage).
34 | P a g e
• Partner with the municipal environmental department, such as the sanitation department, or the public works department to identify funding incentives for green infrastructure
5.5. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Before a park opens, a management structure must be determined, and an O&M strategy put in place . The maintenance tasks required for each element to ensure the park remains safe, functional, and a beloved resource for the community.
5.5.1. Work to be performed
Once a list of park elements is created, assign tasks required to meet the maintenance goal for each element. For example, trash and recycle receptacle will need to be emptied and sprayed out with water or cleaner. Tables and benches and other site furnishings will need to be inspected for safety and sanitation. Pavements will need to be swept periodically and washed down depending on usage. Wood decks will need to be inspected annually and may require resealing every 3-5 years depending on environmental conditions. Permeable pavers will need to be inspected and possible swept or vacuum every 3-5 years depending on environmental conditions. Plants will need to be watered, trimmed, fertilized, and replaced if it’s damaged or dead. A budget for replacing 1/3 the pollinator plants (1 gallon) every three years depending on weather and park usage. Park automatic irrigation system should be observed monthly and adjusted operation time adjusted seasonally.
The synthetic turf will need to have surface debris removed regularly, washdown quarterly and if soiled by users in the public domain and annually groomed to fluff the turf depending on the environmental conditions.
5.5.2. Proposed funding or Collaborative Arrangement for Maintenance
This park will be incorporated into an already established parks and recreation framework which through self-performance and contracted services provide an experienced workforce and dedicated park budget necessary for O&M activities in the park site.
35 | P a g e
SECTION 6: PARK DEVELOPMENT
36 | P a g e
Figure 15: Final Concept
37 | P a g e
6.1. PARK DESIGN
The Design concept incorporates three major entry points delineated with brick paving to honor one of the building materials used in early development of San Jose, the former agricultural fairgrounds and the Shasta Hanchett Neighborhoods. The concept energy is related to the forms of the space but also honors San Jose as a place of energy, innovation, and technology.
Energy is so engrained into the City’s foundations as an electric light tower was erected in 1881. Reimagining the lightning bolt as a symbol of energy, patterns are expressed in the plan and forms of the park. The Alameda frontage is a green respite from the street facades and provides a grove of high canopy shade trees to sit under. Informal seating and terraced seating are incorporated throughout the design. The space is designed to be flexible and allow a gathering with a speaker at the center of the space or at the Hanchett edge facing into the park. Active events such as corn hole, ping pong and foosball are all available in this orientation. Shade structures provide protection for those in the central plaza, at tables and along the walls. A pollinator garden is included to create a soft edge at the east end of the park and offer a connection to the environment.
6.2. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The opportunities and constraints are interpreted in previous sections and have been addressed in the planning process sectio n.
6.3. CIRCULATION
Adequate design scale to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrian use. Open the frontage on each street side to promote ingress and egress the site. Accessible path throughout the site for all-inclusive use.
6.4. EDUCATION
What truly makes the Park at 1343 The Alameda unique, and what gives it the character that is so treasured by park users, is its history and sustainable design approach. The Park’s aesthetic originated with historic context of the neighborhood and the City and extended with the sustainable design approaches, such as pollinator & rain garden. To share the history of the Shasta- Hanchett neighborhood and educational on the design approaches, a comprehensive interpretive experience should be established.
Interpretive education can take many forms. Most commonly, signage informs users and visitors with images and a narrative that tells a story. This information can also be incorporated into special paving, seat walls, play features, public art piec es and more. Whatever the method, special consideration should be taken to express these stories in a variety of ways in order to truly engage park users. The interpretive experience of Park at 1343 The Alameda should be a discovery of stories as users move through the space. There should be unpredictable approaches and interactive exhibits. Heavy amounts of text should be avoided. Exhibits should use key statements and simple titles to communicate topics while using images or physical features t o support the stories being told.
The Master Plan suggests the following topics for telling the story of Park at 1343 The Alameda:
1. The Alameda
• A brief history of how the Alameda developed.
• History of Technology in the valley
2. Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood
• A description of the architectural context in the Shasta Hanchett Neighborhood .
3. Play and Fun for all ages
• Game tables are provided for table top games, ping pong or foosball. • Toned musical instruments and percussion boxes are included for all ages to play. • Seating is configured to provide opportunity for a group puppet show, musical trio or other small group entertainment.
38 | P a g e
4. Pollinator Garden
• An interpretive sign shows the pollinator Habitat
5. Rain Garden
• An interpretive sign to interpret what is ‘rain garden’ and the benefit of rain garden.
Example of rain garden interpretive sign
6.5. ACTIVATE SJ GOALS
The Activate SJ goals have been interpreted and described how it’s being applied in the master plan per the Section 3, Goals and Objectives.
6.6. ARTICULATING SPACES
The articulating spaces have been interpreted on the illustrative plan in the sub-section of master plan refinement.
6.7. PALETTES AND DESIGN THEMES
The design theme has been interpreted in the sub-section 6.1. park design.
Figure 16: 3D Renderings of the Site Design
39 | P a g e
6.8. SITE FURNISHINGS
Figure 17: 3D Renderings of Site Furnishings
40 | P a g e
SECTION 7: DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
41 | P a g e
7.1. SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS
The Park at 1343 The Alameda as a pocket park, it contains landscaped area and neighborhood-serving amenities, and is intended to have area to socialize, site and relax.
The Park should reflect the design and placemaking elements of surrounding urban character comply with architect ural styles, signage, colors, textures, materials, and other elements.
The Park shall be highly visible and accessible from adjacent street.
7.2. STREET CROSSING
Enhance the walkability by designing more attractive and pedestrian-friendly environment. Combining art into the conventional crosswalk by collaborate with local artist.
7.3. PLANTING
To create a viable green park that demonstrates Low Impact Development (LID) features.
The shade trees, flowering accent trees, ornamental shrubs, grasses and, ground covers may be used at key locations. The accent tree species shall be small scale tree and attractive in all seasons with spring flowers. Shade trees shall be ‘root friendly’ for the urban environment.
The native plant shall be utilized at the pollinator garden and as much as practical to support the local biome.
The planting area shall be utilized for the stormwater management area.
Trees shall be supported with expanded root area to support vibrant growth and protect the accessible routes and pavement from premature damage. Structural soil and/or suspended pavement is recommended as part of the planting infrastructure.
7.4. MISCELLANEOUS SITE AMENITIES
The park should be designed to provide visually engaging gathering spaces for community members to socialize, as well as space for neighborhood events. Features such as temporary art installations, play features, and uni que plantings would draw the eye to these lively, urban focal points.
Provide a variety of seating opportunities such as traditional benches, group seats, bar tables, terrace seat wall, as well t able & chairs under the tree shade.
Prepare the park for pop-up events, include power outlets, clips on the ground, and ‘’plug and play’ for music performances.
Shade structure or fabric should be provided to balance the sun & shade needs.
Variety of play feature to meet different user groups needs, such as chess table, ping pong table, cornhole play place, kids play table and music play structure.
Site amenities shall be durable, easily maintained and replaced, and be constructed of recycled materials where possible.
Pedestrian and bike – friendly should be reflected from the site amenities by providing safe pedestrian and bike path and variety seating and bike racks.
42 | P a g e
7.5. MAINTENANCE
Low and easy maintenance, focus on durability with function and style.
7.5.1. Guidance for Minimizing Maintenance Tasks and Duration
7.5.1.1. Access to Turf for Mowing
No natural turf is proposed for the site.
7.5.1.2. Reduction of Non-recreation Turf
No natural turf is proposed for the site.
7.5.1.3. Strategic plant groupings
The planting design should consider site appropriateness, ecosystem services and site visibility and safety. Plant grouping will provide maximum visual aesthetic as well as contribute to the environmental health of an area.
7.5.1.4. Spaces for volunteer-led maintenance
Use O&M as an opportunity to engage local volunteers or paid stewards and incorporate community or non -profit led maintenance structures where possible.
43 | P a g e
SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTATION
44 | P a g e
8.1. ESTIMATED HARD COSTS
1. The estimate of probable construction cost is $1.23 million and $2.61 million with construction contingencies. The Appendix B detailed the hard costs.
2. The estimated add alternates cost is $231k.
8.2. ESTIMATED SOFT COSTS
The estimate of probable construction soft cost is $1.38 million with construction contingencies. The Appendix B detailed the soft costs.
8.3. PRIORITIES AND PHASING
No priorities and phasing applying to this site.
8.4. ONGOING OPERATIONAL COSTS
The park can be considered a low maintenance installation from the planting, irrigation design but the urban character is subject to high use and as such should be monitored daily or weekly depending on the usage for trash clean up, visual inspection and cleaning. The site furnishings, drinking fountain and irrigation system should be inspected quarterly for potential damage and light cleaning or adjustment as appropriate. Synthetic turf, wood decking should be inspected annually.
Additional maintenance is included in section 5.5 Maintenance Requirements.
45 | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Council
Sam Liccardo, Mayor
District 1 – Charles “Chappie” Jones, Vice Mayor
District 2 – Sergio Jimenez
District 3 – Raul Peralez
District 4 – David Cohen
District 5 – Magdalena Carrasco
District 6 – Devora “Dev” Davis
District 7 – Maya Esparza
District 8 – Sylvia Arenas
District 9 – Pam Foley
District 10 – Matt Mahan
Parks and Recreation Commission
District 1 – Daphna Woolfe, Chair
District 2 – Andre Morrow
District 3 – Lawrence Ames
District 4 – Kelly Snider
District 5 – Daisy Barocio
District 6 – Art Maurice
District 7 – Giavanna Vega
District 8 – Vacant
District 9 – Janny Choy
District 10 – Nooran Bayzaie
Citywide – Jose Villarreal, Vice Chair
City of San Jose
City of San Jose – Hayde Pacheco, Parks Manager
City of San Jose – Jason Condit, Sr Landscape Architect City of San Jose – Yves Zsutty, Division Manager
City of San Jose – Cassie Hunter, Staff Specialist
City of San Jose – Bethelhem Telahun, Planner Environmental Review Design Consultant
Verde Design, Inc – Landscape Architecture and Civil Engineering David J Powers – Environmental Consultant
Cotton Shires - Geotech
Underwood & Rosenblum – Survey
46 | P a g e
APPENDIX
Appendix A Community Survey Results
• 1st Online Survey Results
• 2nd Online Survey Results
• 3rd Online Survey Results
Appendix B Cost Estimate
• Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
Appendix C PRC Engagement
• PRC Meeting Minutes
Appendix D CEQA
• Project Description with Avoidance Measures
• Vibration Calculations
• SOIS Compliance Analysis Memo with Appendix
47 | P a g e
Appendix A Community Survey Results
• 1st Online Survey Results
48 | P a g e
1343 The Alameda Park Master Plan & Naming
1st Online Survey Results
• Survey Started: 4/15/2021
• Survey Completed: 4/30/2021
• Respondent: 167
1st Online Survey Results
49 | P a g e
1st Online Survey Results
50 | P a g e
1st Online Survey Results
51 | P a g e
1st Online Survey Results
52 | P a g e
1st Online Survey Results
53 | P a g e
Appendix A Community Survey Results
• 2nd Online Survey Results
54 | P a g e
1343 The Alameda Park Master Plan & Naming
2nd Online Survey Results
• Survey Started: 6/12/2021
• Survey Completed: 7/27/2021
• Respondent: 97
2nd Online Survey Results
55 | P a g e
2nd Online Survey Results
56 | P a g e
2nd Online Survey Results
57 | P a g e
2nd Online Survey Results
58 | P a g e
Appendix A Community Survey Results
• 3rd Online Survey Results
59 | P a g e
1343 The Alameda Park Master Plan & Naming
3rd Online Survey Results
• Survey Started: 11/17/2021
• Survey Completed: 12/3/2021
• Respondent: 66
3rd Online Survey Results
60 | P a g e
3rd Online Survey Results
61 | P a g e
3rd Online Survey Results
62 | P a g e
Appendix B Cost Estimate
• Estimate of Probable
Construction Cost
63 | P a g e
Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
64 | P a g e
Estimate of Probable Construction Cost
65 | P a g e
Appendix C PRC Engagement
• PRC Meeting Minutes
66 | P a g e
PRC Meeting Minutes
67 | P a g e
Appendix D CEQA
• Statement of Exemption
• Project Description with
Avoidance Measures
• Vibration Calculations
• SOIS Compliance Analysis
Memo with Appendix
200 E. Santa Clara Street, 3rd FL San José, CA 95113 tel (408) 535-3555 www.sanjoseca.gov/pbce
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FILE NO. ER22-071
LOCATION OF PROPERTY Northwest corner of The A lameda and Hanchett Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public exemption to redevelop an existing public parking lot into a public park.
CERTIFICATION
Under the provisions of Sections 15303. New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as stated below, this project is found to be exempt from the environmental review req uirements of Title 21 of the San José Municipal Code, implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
15303. New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited number of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small str uctures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modificatio ns are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located on the northwest corner on the inte rsection of The Alameda and Hanchett Avenue (Figure 1). The site is bounded by commercial uses to th e north, east and south, and residential uses to the west.
The approximately 0.17-acre lot contains a public parking lot w ith 18 parking spaces. The site is mostly paved with fencing along the perimeter. There are 4 trees in th e parking lot, as well as 4 street trees along Hanchett and 2 street trees along The Alameda.
Exemption for ER22-071 Hanchett Park Page 2 of 4
Figure 1. Project Site
PROPOSED PROJECT
The project would demolish the existing parking lot to build a new public park (Figure 2). Project construction would take up to 12 months. Eight trees would be r e m o v e d . T h e t w o s t r e e t t r e e s o n t h e Alameda will be preserved. The project proposes to plant 24 replacement trees.
The proposed park would include seating, landscaping, and ameni ties such as game tables, gathering space, passive play areas, a pollinator garden, sitting areas, shade structures, and trash and recycle receptacles. An eight-foot ornamental metal screening fence wou ld be installed along the western property line and wrap around the northwest corner of the site to connect to the existing fence on the northern property line. Three 20-foot security lighting poles w ould be installed on-site, one at the southwest corner, one at the northwestern corner of the site, and one at the center of the site. The park will operate from sunrise to one hour after sunset, seven days a week.
Exemption for ER22-071 Hanchett Park Page 3 of 4
Figure 2. Site Plan
ANALYSIS
The project site is within an urbanized area with existing conditions to sewer, water, and electricity service. The project site is not within close proximity to any rivers or waterways. The project would result in the demolition of the existing parking lot to construct a passive park. The construction would be minimal and temporary as the new proposed structures are minor improvements to the site. For these reasons, the proposed physical changes to the project site would not result in new significant impacts. As the project would result in a change of use with minor physical changes, the project qualifies for Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Exceptions:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides exceptions to the use of Categorical Exemptions where the use of a Categorical Exemption is prohibited under certain circumstances. The City has considered the projects applicability to all of the exceptions under Section 15300.2. A n analysis of each of these exceptions in reference to this specific project is provided below.
(a) Location. Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located.
Section 15300.2(a) started that a project that is ordinarily in significant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be sign ificant. This project would only result in minor changes to the project site.
(b) Cumulative Impact. Based on the above analysis, there is no evi dence of a potential significant cumulative impact on the environment from the proposed project. The project proposes to convert an existing parking lot into a passive park. It has been determined that the project will not cumulatively impact air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and transportation. (c) Significant Effect. The project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project is to convert an existing parking lot into a passive park. For these reasons, the proposed project site does not have any unusual circumstances that would negatively impact the environment.
(d) Scenic Highways. The project is not located adjacent to or visible from a designated scenic highway.
Therefore, the project is not subject to 15300.2(d).
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. The project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
(f) Historical Resources. This project will not impact historical resources located on the proposed project site; therefore, Section 15300.2(f) does not apply.
CHRISTOPHER BURTON, Director
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
Date 5/23/2022 ee
Deputy
Environmental Project Manager: Bethelhem Telahun
Attachment:
. Hanchett Park Project Description, May 2022
. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review, February 2022 A
B
C. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, May 2018
D. Noise and Vibrations Calculations, February 2022
Exemption for ER22-071 Hanchett Park Page 4 of 4
PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 7,296 square feet (or 0.17-acre), rectangular shaped project site is located at the northwest corner of The Alameda and Hanchett Avenue. For ease of reference, The Alameda is considered east of the project site and Hanchett Avenue is considered south of the project site. The project site is bounded by The Alameda (a four-lane roadway) and commercial uses to the east, commercial uses adjacent to the north, Hanchett Avenue (a two-lane roadway) and commercial uses to the south, and residential uses adjacent to the west. The project site is currently developed with a public parking lot with 18 vehicle parking spaces, landscaping including trees, and fencing around the site perimeter with openings for pedestrians and vehicles.
The project site is within The Alameda Urban Village and also the Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area, a local conservation area. The project site is designated as Neighborhood/Community Commercial in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan and is zoned Agriculture (Planned Development).
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of San José proposes to redevelop the site into a public park. The existing public parking spaces onsite would not be replaced as part of the project. The proposed park would include seating, landscaping, and amenities such as game tables, gathering space, passive play areas, a pollinator garden, sitting areas, shade structures, and trash and recycle receptacles. An eight-foot ornamental metal screening fence would be installed along the western property line and wrap around the northwest corner of the site to connect to the existing fence on the northern property line. Three 20- foot security lighting poles would be installed on-site, one at the southwest corner, one at the northwestern corner of the site, and one at the center of the site.
1.2.1 Access, Circulation, and Parking
The project site would be accessed by sidewalks on The Alameda and Hanchett Avenue. Existing street parking on The Alameda and Hanchett Avenue would remain and be available for visitors.
Two bicycle racks would be installed at the park entrance on Hanchett Avenue.
1.2.2 Landscaping
Currently, there are a total of 10 trees within the project footprint (including four trees on-site at the existing public parking lot, two street trees on The Alameda, and four street trees on Hanchett Avenue). The project would result in the removal of all trees except for the two street trees on The Alameda. The project would plant 24 new trees (each meetings the City’s minimum 15-gallon size requirement), including 20 trees on the proposed park and four street trees on Hanchett Avenue along the project site frontage. Once developed, the project would include approximately 800 square feet of landscaping, 1,600 square feet of pervious paving, and 4,880 square feet of impervious paving on- site.
Attachment A
1.2.3 Hours of Operation
The proposed park would operate from sunrise to one hour after sunset, seven days per week, consistent with other City parks. The proposed light poles would have LED fixture with dynamic dimmer controller. The fixtures would function as security lighting, and would turn on from dusk to 10:00 PM, dim down from 10:00 PM to an hour before dawn, and fully on for an hour till dawn.
1.2.4 Project Construction
The proposed project would take up to 12 months to construct. The site would be balanced with soils on-site; no off-haul of soil is required. The maximum depth of excavation would be two feet.
Construction and demolition debris would be off hauled to the appropriate disposal facilities.
Vibration-generating construction equipment would be used during construction, and may include a backhoe, vibratory roller, and vibrating plate machine for demolition of the existing improvements and preparation of the site, and an auger for drilling the foundation of the proposed light poles and shade structures.
1.2.5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The project shall comply with all applicable regulations and includes the following standard avoidance and minimization measures below as part of the project.
Air Quality
Dust and Exhaust
• The project proposes to implement the following measures during all phases of construction to control dust and exhaust at the project site:
- Water active construction areas at least twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions.
- Cover trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and/or ensure that all trucks hauling such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. - Remove visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
- Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
- Pave new or improved roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible. - Lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
- Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. - Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
- Minimize idling times either by shutting off equipment when not in use, or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations).
Provide clear signage for construction workers at all access points.
- Maintain and property tune construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Check all equipment by a certified mechanic and record a determination of running in proper condition prior to operation. - Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints.
Biological Resources
Nesting Birds
• The project shall schedule demolition and construction activities to avoid the nesting season.
The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area, extends from February 1st through August 31st (inclusive).
• If demolition and construction cannot be scheduled between September 1st and January 31st (inclusive), pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be completed no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats within 250 feet (for raptors) and 100 feet (for non-raptors) of the construction areas for nests.
• If an active nest is found within 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non-raptors of the work areas to be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist/biologist shall determine the extent of a construction free buffer zone to be established around the nest, typically 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other birds, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests shall not be disturbed during project construction. The no-disturbance/construction free buffer zone shall remain in place until the ornithologist/biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for seven days or more then resumes again during the nesting season, an additional survey shall be necessary to avoid impacts to active bird nests that may be present.
• Prior to the start of construction, the ornithologist/biologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning or Director’s designee of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE).
Tree Removal
• The removed trees would be replaced according to tree replacement ratios provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Tree Replacement Ratios
Circumference of
Tree to be
Removed
Type of Tree to be Removed Minimum Size of Each
Replacement Tree Native Non-Native Orchard
38 inches or more 5:1 4:1 3:1 15-gallon
Table 1: Tree Replacement Ratios
Circumference of
Tree to be
Removed
Type of Tree to be Removed Minimum Size of Each
Replacement Tree Native Non-Native Orchard
19 up to 38 inches 3:1 2:1 none 15-gallon
Less than 19 inches 1:1 1:1 none 15-gallon
x:x = tree replacement to tree loss ratio
A total of eight trees (four on-site and four street trees on Hanchett Avenue) would be removed and replaced: 7 non-native, less than 19-inch in circumference trees would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, and 1 non-native 19-38-inch in circumference trees would be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. There are no native trees on-site. The total number of replacement trees required to be planted would be 9 trees. The project proposes to plant 24 replacement trees.
The removal of trees would be reviewed and approved by the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (PBCE). Species of trees to be planted would be determined in consultation with the City Arborist and PBCE at the development review stage.
In the event the project site does not have sufficient area to accommodate the required tree mitigation, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented, to the satisfaction of the Director of PBCE, at the development review stage:
1. The size of a 15-gallon replacement tree may be increased to 24-inch box and count as two replacement trees to be planted on the project site, at the development permit stage.
2. Pay Off-Site Tree Replacement Fee(s) to the PBCE, prior to start of construction, in accordance to the City Council approved Fee Resolution. The City shall use the off- site tree replacement fee(s) to plant trees at alternative sites.
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
• The project is subject to applicable SCVHP conditions and fees (including the nitrogen deposition fee). PRNS will submit the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Coverage Screening Form (https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/151/Coverage-Screening- Form?bidId=) to the Director of PBCE or the Director's designee for approval and payment of the nitrogen deposition fee prior to the start of construction. The Habitat Plan and supporting materials can be viewed at https://scv-habitatagency.org/178/Santa-Clara-Valley- Habitat-Plan.
Cultural Resources
Subsurface Cultural Resources
• If prehistoric or historic resources are encountered during excavation and/or grading of the site, all activity within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be stopped, the Director of PBCE or the Director’s designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist in consultation with a Native American representative registered with the Native American Heritage Commission for the City of San José and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3 shall examine the find. The archaeologist shall 1) evaluate the find(s) to determine if they meet the definition of a historical or archaeological resource; and (2) make appropriate recommendations regarding the disposition of such finds prior to issuance of building permits. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovery shall be submitted to Director of PBCE or the Director's designee and the City’s Historic Preservation Officer and the Northwest Information Center (if applicable). Project personnel shall not collect or move any cultural materials.
• If any human remains are found during any field investigations, grading, or other construction activities, all provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 7054 and 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.99, as amended per Assembly Bill 2641, shall be followed. If human remains are discovered during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The project applicant shall immediately notify the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) or the Director's designee and the qualified archaeologist, who shall then notify the Santa Clara County Coroner. The Coroner will make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the remains are believed to be Native American, the Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD will inspect the remains and make a recommendation on the treatment of the remains and associated artifacts. If one of the following conditions occurs, the landowner or his authorized representative shall work with the Coroner to reinter the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
- The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being given access to the site. - The MLD identified fails to make a recommendation; or - The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Geology and Soils
Seismic Ground Shaking
• To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the project shall be constructed using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. Design of structures and construction at the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of an approved geotechnical investigation. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San José Department of Public Works as part of the design review process. The structures shall meet the requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes as adopted or updated by the City. The project shall be designed to withstand soil hazards identified on the site and the project shall be designed to reduce the risk to life or property on site and off site to the extent feasible and in compliance with the Building Code.
Geologic Hazards
• The project shall be constructed in accordance with the standard engineering practices in the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of San José. Approval for grading from the San José Department of Public Works shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Public Works clearance. These standard practices would ensure that the future structures on the site are designed to properly account for soils-related hazards on the site.
Soil Erosion
• All excavation and grading work shall be scheduled in dry weather months or construction sites shall be weatherized.
• Stockpiles and excavated soils shall be covered with secured tarps or plastic sheeting. • Ditches shall be installed to divert runoff around excavations and graded areas if necessary.
Paleontological Resources
• If vertebrate fossils are discovered during construction, all work on the site shall stop immediately, Director of Planning or Director’s designee of the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement (PBCE) shall be notified, and a qualified professional paleontologist shall assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. Treatment may include, but is not limited to, preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the qualified paleontologist. A report of all findings shall be submitted to the Director of Planning or Director’s designee of the PBCE.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Stormwater Pollution and Sedimentation
• The project proposes measures to prevent stormwater pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during construction including, but not limited to, the following:
- Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route sediment and other debris away from the drains.
- Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities shall be suspended during periods of high winds.
- All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary.
- Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown away by the wind shall be watered or covered.
- All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be required to cover all trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
- All paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas and residential streets adjacent to the construction sites shall be swept daily (with water sweepers). - Vegetation in disturbed areas shall be replanted as quickly as possible.
- All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to knock mud from truck tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system shall be installed if requested by the City.
- The project applicant shall comply with the City of San José Grading Ordinance, including implementing erosion and dust control during site preparation and with the City of San José Zoning Ordinance requirements for keeping adjacent streets free of dirt and mud during construction.
Noise and Vibration
Construction Noise
• The project proposes best available noise suppression measures to minimize construction noise including, but not limited to the following:
- Limit construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for any on-site or off-site work within 500 feet of any residential unit. Construction outside of these hours may be approved through a development permit based on a site-specific “construction noise mitigation plan” and a finding by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the construction noise mitigation plan is adequate to prevent noise disturbance of affected residential use. - Construct solid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to operational businesses, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses. - Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. - Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. - Locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses.
- Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
- Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site.
- Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of “noisy” construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences. - If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites.
- Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
Construction Vibration
• A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g. tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, clam shovel drop, and vibratory roller, etc.) shall be submitted to the Director of PBCE or the Director's designee by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds.
• Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration-sensitive receptors.
• Use smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below 0.08 inches per second at the property lines.
• Avoid using vibratory rollers and clam shovel drops near sensitive areas. • Select demolition methods not involving impact tools. • Modify/design or identify alternative construction methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.
• Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.
• Implement a construction vibration monitoring plan to document conditions at the northern and western adjacent properties prior to, during, and after construction. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California (and a Historic Architect if the affected structures are historic resources) and be in accordance with industry-accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks:
− Identification of sensitivity to ground-borne vibration of nearby structures. A vibration survey (generally described below) would need to be performed. − Performance of a pre-construction photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each of these structures. Surveys shall be performed prior to any vibration generating construction activities, in regular interval during construction, and after completion and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures.
− Conduct post-construction survey on the surveyed structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.
− The results of all vibration monitoring shall be summarized and submitted in a report to the City’s Supervising Environmental Planner assigned by the City to the project review, shortly after substantial completion of each phase identified in the project schedule. The report shall include a description of measurement methods, equipment used, calibration certificates, and graphics as required to clearly identify vibration- monitoring locations. An explanation of all events that exceeded vibration limits shall be included together with proper documentation supporting any such claims. − Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
treanorhl.com
MEMORANDUM: HANCHETT PARK, SAN JOSE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S
STANDARDS COMPLIANCE REVIEW
DATE: February 24, 2022
PROJECT: Hanchett Park, San Jose
HP0639.22031.00
TO: Amy Wang, Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates
FROM: Kimberly Butt, AIA
Aysem Kilinc Unlu, Architectural Historian
ITEM DISCUSSION
1.1 Memo Summary
At the request of David J. Powers & Associates, TreanorHL has prepared the following memorandum to evaluate the proposed design at 1343 The Alameda (APN 261-23-064) for the Hanchett Park Master Plan project, and its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards).
Located at the intersection of The Alameda and Hanchett Avenue in San Jose, California, the project site is currently used as a surface parking lot. The subject parcel is within the boundaries of the locally designated Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area. This memorandum provides a property description, significance summary, a project description and an analysis of the proposed design for compliance with the Standards, Rehabilitation treatment, in order to determine if the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of or cause an impact to the Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area.
1.2 Methodology
A site visit to the project site and the surrounding Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area was conducted on January 27, 2022 to photograph and observe the project site and the surrounding area. TreanorHL completed brief research on the Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area and the construction history of the subject parcel. The following findings are based on a review of the plans and renderings by Verde Design received on January 18 and February 2, 2022 (see Appendix).
1.3 Property Description
The proposed project site is a roughly rectangular-shaped parcel located at the northwest corner of The Alameda and Hanchett Avenue. Currently developed with an asphalt -paved public parking lot and landscaping, the site has no built structures on it. The surrounding area consists of mainly commercial and institutional uses to the east along The Alameda and residential uses to the west.
According to the aerial photographs and Sanborn maps, a gas and service station featuring two one-story steel-frame structures was constructed on the parcel by 1939. The structures were still Attachment B
Hanchett Park, San Jose, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum February 24, 2022
treanorhl.com
ITEM DISCUSSION
visible on the 1968 aerial photograph but demolished by the early 1980s. The parcel has remained vacant since the 1980s.1
Figure 1. Aerial view of the proposed project site outlined in a dashed red line (Google Earth, image date 2021).
Figure 2. Looking north from Hanchett Avenue.
1 1915 and 1950 Sanborn maps via Library of Congress; 1939 and 1968 aerial photographs from UC Santa Barbara Library Geospatial Collection, Historic Aerials by NETR Online; San Jose City Directories via Ancestry.com.
Hanchett Park, San Jose, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum February 24, 2022
treanorhl.com
ITEM DISCUSSION
Figure 3. Looking southwest from The Alameda.
Figure 4. 1950 Sanborn map, the project site outlined in dashed red.
1.4 Historic Significance Summary
The project site is within the boundaries of the locally designated Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area.
The [Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area] consists of two adjacent neighborhoods that are generally bounded by Magnolia Street to the north, The Alameda to the east, Park Avenue to the west, and Mariposa Avenue to the south. Hanchett and Hester Park were designed by John McLaren (1846-1943), the designer of San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.
Hanchett Park, originally part of the fairgrounds, was surveyed in 1906 and opened in 1907.
The Hester District dates to 1893 and included the former Gardner District (annexed 1911).
The Hester-Hanchett-College Park district was annexed to the City of San José in 1925. These mostly single family residences date from ca. 1906 to 1935 and include Queen Anne, Craftsman Bungalow, and Spanish Mission Colonial Revival styles as well as several in the Prairie style in Hanchett Park. The Hanchett Park neighborhood retains some of the best mix of Prairie, Spanish Revival and, Craftsman residences in San Jose. In addition, Martin Avenue
Hanchett Park, San Jose, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum February 24, 2022
treanorhl.com
ITEM DISCUSSION
between Park Avenue and The Alameda includes City of San José Heritage Trees - 80 Mexican Fan Palms (Washingtonia robusta; (HG-06-007)).2
Figure 5. The boundaries of the Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area; the project site marked with a star. City of San Jose, retrieved January 2022.
1.5 Proposed Project Description
The City of San José proposes to redevelop the site into a public park which would contain seating, landscaping, and walking paths and include amenities such as game tables, gathering space, passive play areas, a pollinator garden, sitting areas, shade structures, and trash and recycle receptacles. An eight-foot ornamental metal screening fence would be installed along the western property line and wrap around the corner of the site to connect to the proposed fence on the northern property line. Three 20-foot security lighting poles would be installed at the southwest corner, the northwest corner, and at the center of the site. 3
See Appendix for the proposed site plan and renderings.
1.6 Regulatory Framework
The project has been reviewed and evaluated in this report in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consistency with the Standards is necessary for a project to receive a Class 31 categorical exemption from CEQA as specified in Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines. That section states as follows:
Class 31 consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer,1995).
2 “Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area,” City of San Jose website, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments/planning-building-code-enforcement/planning-division/historic-preservation/historic-districts-areas/hanchett- hester-park-conservation-area (accessed February 1, 2022). 3 Largely summarized from the project description received from David J. Powers, February 2, 2022.
Hanchett Park, San Jose, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum February 24, 2022
treanorhl.com
ITEM DISCUSSION
The CEQA Guidelines provide for various classes of categorical exemptions, including Class 31 exemptions for projects that are limited to rehabilitation of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Standards. However, this exemption cannot be used where the pro posed project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined by the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15064.5(b).
The CEQA Guidelines state that physical demolition of a resource by definition constitutes a “substantial adverse change" and would therefore have a significant adverse effect on the resource. Furthermore, relocation or “alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings” can also constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource if it would result in “material impairment” of the resource. A project is considered to result in material impairment when it "alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion" in the California Register of Historical Resources (Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A)). However, if the proposed project would not result in a “material impairment" and is found to be consistent with the Standards, it will qualify for the Class 31 categorical exemption. Further, generally a project that follows the Standards “shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource” (Section 15064.5(b)(3)).
1.7 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis
Of the four prescribed treatments for historic properties outlined in the Standards, Rehabilitation provides the most appropriate set of standards for the subject project. Rehabilitation is the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
The project site does not include any built historic resources; however, the proposed project entails developing a new public park on a vacant parcel within the boundaries of the locally designated Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area, a historical resource as defined by CEQA. A review of project conformance with the Standards was undertaken, becau se a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards can generally be considered to be a project that will not cause a significant impact (14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)(1)). Standards 1-7 address work proposed on historic resources themselves and are not applicable to the proposed project since it does not propose any direct alterations or additions to any built historic resources within the project site. Standard 8 is related to archaeological resources and is beyond the scope of this report. As new construction within a locally designated conservation area, the proposed project should be designed to be compatible with the overall historic character of the area. Only two of the Standards (9 and 10) are relevant in the evaluation of the project within the conservation area. A review of the project for compliance with Standards 9 and 10 is presented below.
9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Hanchett Park, San Jose, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum February 24, 2022
treanorhl.com
ITEM DISCUSSION
Analysis. The proposed project is on a vacant parcel within the conservation area which consists of a paved parking lot created in the 1980s; therefore, it will not destroy any historic buildings, materials, or features that characterize the conservation area. The proposed park project will be contemporary in design and clearly differentiated from the contributing historic resources within the historic district.
The buildings in the conservation area are mostly single-family houses from ca. 1906 to 1935 and designed in Queen Anne, Craftsman Bungalow, Spanish Mission, Colonial Revival, and Prairie styles. The building materials including stucco, wood (siding and shingles), concrete, masonry, metals, and glass. The proposed project primarily features concrete and brick paving, concrete and wood seating elements, metal screens, and chain link fence —materials which will be compatible with the historic district.
The proposed park design does not include or incorporate any false-historic features. The proposed design is contemporary and clearly differentiates from the early 20 th century architecture of the conservation area.
The proposed project will be compatible with the conservation area in terms of size, scale, proportion, and massing. The project does not propose any built structures but only landscaping, seating elements, play tables, fences on two sides, three shade structures, and three light poles. The site is adjacent to a one-story building to the west and a two-story building to the north and none of proposed components appear out of scale.
Overall, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Analysis. The proposed project complies with Standard 10. It would not alter the essential form and integrity of the conservation area nor impact any character ‐defining features if removed in the future since the proposed project is replacing a noncontributing parking lot with another open space, a public park.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed Hanchett Park project at 1343 The Alameda in the Hanchett and Hester Park Conservation Area appears to be consistent with the Standards. The project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of or cause an impact to any historical resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) and would qualify for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption as outlined in Section 15331.
1.8 Authors’ Qualifications
This memorandum has been prepared by Kimberly Butt, AIA, and Aysem Kilinc whom exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards for professional in architectural history and architecture as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. Ana Borlas-Ivern, MA, assisted in undertaking background research and conducted the site visit.
Hanchett Park, San Jose, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum February 24, 2022
treanorhl.com
APPENDIX
Proposed Project (Verde Design, 2022)
Attachment C
From: Michael S. Thill
To: Amy Wang
Subject: RE: Hanchett Park Master Plan - Project Description and Info Date: Thursday, February 3, 2022 3:49:37 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image002.png
Hi Amy:
I have
tabularized the worst-case construction vibration levels for the proposed project below.
The vibration
levels in Table 1
assume that the construction activities would occur at the project perimeter, closest to the receptor in each direction.
Vibration
levels
would potentially exceed the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold at the nearest buildings to the north and west, and would not be expected to exceed the threshold at any other buildings in the project vicinity.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Vibration
levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate , where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. Table 1 summarizes the vibration levels at each of the surrounding historic buildings in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 1, the nearest historic buildings north and west of the project site would be exposed to vibration levels exceeding the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold. Table 2 summarizes the minimum distances that should be maintained in order to avoid exceeding the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold.
TABLE 1
Vibration Source Levels at Nearest Historic Buildings
Equipment PPV (in/sec)
North (5 ft) West (10 ft) South (70 ft) East (115 ft)
Clam shovel drop 1.186 0.553 0.065 0.038
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil 0.047 0.022 0.003 0.001
in rock 0.100 0.047 0.005 0.003
Vibratory Roller 1.233 0.575 0.068 0.039
Hoe Ram 0.523 0.244 0.029 0.017
Large bulldozer 0.523 0.244 0.029 0.017
Caisson drilling 0.523 0.244 0.029 0.017
Loaded trucks 0.446 0.208 0.024 0.014
Jackhammer 0.206 0.096 0.011 0.007
Small bulldozer 0.018 0.008 0.001 0.001
Source:
Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S.
Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., February 2022.
TABLE 2
Minimum Distance to Avoid Exceeding Construction Vibration Threshold for Historic Buildings Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)
Minimum Distance to Meet 0.08
in/sec PPV at Historic Buildings
(feet)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 59
Hydromill (slurry
wall)
in soil 0.008 4
in rock 0.017 7
Vibratory Roller 0.210 61
Hoe Ram 0.089 28
Large bulldozer 0.089 28
Caisson drilling 0.089 28
Loaded trucks 0.076 24
Jackhammer 0.035 12
Small bulldozer 0.003 2
Source:
Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S.
Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., February 2022.
Michael
Michael S. Thill
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
429 E. Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(Main)
707.794.0400 x 110
(Direct)
707.753.4568
Attachment D