HomeMy WebLinkAbout0151.093, '
\ , •
. -',
~ . ,
o 0
'~:": ".;,~--'
,;r,":>;':"
February 4, 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY COL,'NeIL
Palo Alto, California
Barron park Drainage i:t.nd Street Design Guidelines. CIP 47704
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
This report transmits a set of design quidelir,es for future street
and drainaqe improvements in the Barron Park neighborhood. It
recommends that Council approve the guidelines.
Background
On DeC"~mber 15, 1992, the Finance committee reviewed a draft set of
design ~uidelines and heard comments from Barron Park residents
{CMR:542:92). Although most residents supported the construction
of drainage improvements on an as-needed basis, several speakers
expressed opposition to pedestrian walkways for Barron Park
streets. Staff explained that the design guideline.s were not
il".tended to man.riate the constr-uction of 'WaD{ ..... ~ays. The guidelines
establish a limited number of streets as candidates for walkways
and define how wdlkways will be install~d. Staff indicate.d that
walkways would not be constructed on any street t.ml~ss requested by
t. ... e adjacent residents. The committee voted to rec~::nmend that
Council approve the gl.dde.lines~ with the condition that staff add
a preaml;:lle to the document describing the spirit of the guidelines
and the City's cOnLl't\i tment to the preservation of the rural
character cf Barron Park.
Discussion
Following the December 15 Finance committee meeting, staff ame:1ded
the Barron Park Drainage and street Design Guidelines by clarifying
the policy on construction of pedestrian 'WClilkways, inserting a
preamble to the document, and adding a summary of city council and
Finance committee meetings. Section 6, Paragraph Bl of the
guidelines (Attachment A) was modified (as highlighted) to state
that walkways wi 11 not be. constructed unless requested by the
public. The preamble {Attachment B) sets the overall tone of the
document by describing the City's commitment to the preservation of
Barron Park's rural character. Hayor Stanley Norton~s 1975 letter
to Barron Park residents follo~ing the annexation of the neighbor
hood was includ~d as background information supporting the City's
policy. The preamble makes it clear that the gu.idelines do not
-1-
CMR:151:9)
~.¥.',f~· , '-,<:):.
-
7
mandate the construction of improvements throughout Barron Park I
but rather establish a set of crlteria tor designing impLcve-ments
where they are accept~ble to the cc~uni~y as well as functional.
Appendix E (Attachment C) contair.:s a summary of the past: City
Council and Finance committee meetings related to the Barron Park
Drainage and Street Design Guidelines.
staff met with the Barron Park Association Board on January 19,
1993 to present the preamble and the final Design Guidelines for
their review and comment. The Board discussed the documents and
passed a resolution supporting the adoption of the guidelines.
Environ:mJ,!ntal...A§..:!?essrnent
The Barron Park Drainage and street Guidelines project is net a
project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
?ecommend at :. '"Ul
~":aff recommends that Council approve the attached "Barron Park
~rainaqe a~d street Design Guidelines N (Attachment D).
Respectfully submitted,
G~G~
Acting Director of Public Works
~~
City Manager
}.ttachltents: A -Modified section 6 of Design Guidelines
B -Preamble to Design Guidelines
C -Appendix E to Design Guidelines
o -Barron P3rk Drainage and Street Design
Guidelines
Related Reports: CMR:510:0
CMR:600:0
CMR:407:91
CMR:473:92
CMR:542:92
cc: will Beckett, Barron Park A3sociation Traf:ic Committee
Public speakers at October 27, 1992 o:.c December 15, 1992
Finance committee meetings
-2-
I
• •
-
Se<:tion 6
Design Guidelines
Condusions
Attachment A
Based on the discussion with Barron Park residents and Lie input received through survey
responses, the project team has developed proposed street design gUldelines for funue
impro .... ements in Barrol'! Parte.. The guidelines ir:clude J1.:lIT3ti ... 'e descriptions thai pro",ide overall
guidance, intePt, and priorities for the design of proje:::ts in Barron Parle. The guidelines also
include sample drainage feature detail drawings (see Figure 2}.
The guidelines can be divided into three basic .sections: 1) drainage features, 2) pedestrian
walkways, 3J1d 3) criteria for implementation.
Narrative Guidelines
A. Drainage Features
1. Three options fCrr drair.age feature type are available:
• Rolled curb (on collector streets witil · ... 'allcway)
• Valley gutter (on local streets and .on colleclor streets with flO wa..lkway)
• Maintain the eJ;i,s.ting condition
Dralnage features will be installed on Barron Park streets on1y when oeecled to 5Oh'e
drainage or pavement deterioration problems.
Rolled cum wl!1 be useJ as the drainage feature for collector streets Qr.ly in conjunction
wit"" a pede~trian walkv,ray. A 'ia11e,. gUlter wili be used to correct drainage pro1:l1ems
where a walkway is not constructed.
2. Drainage features ~~.all be installed in accordaru:e with the criteria listed in Section C of
these design guideli_fles. Valley gutters shall be placed at the outside edge of existing
pavement in a manner that is as linear as po.s..c;ible and minimizes roadway narrowing or
widening. In order to provide adequate space for vehicle pa.rling, rolled curbs shall be
placed such that there is a minimum of 3ti feet from the back of one curb to the back uf
the opposile curb.
3. Drainage features shall be constructed with concrete mixed with 4 pints of carbon black
for eacb cubic yard of concrete to achieve a medium shade of grJ.y.
6-1
c-
"' iJ d
~j
'i ,.!
I
i
! -,
I
"1
4. The tIansition from existing vertical curb and gutter to newly proposed drainage features
.shall follow these guidelines:
• There shall be a one let trarlsition area of vertical curb and gutter along
tile side frontage o~ properties fror.ting or. El Camino Rt2.l.
• Where vertical curb and g\ltter ex.ists on B:uToi\ Par"",-streets, it '.liill not
be extended (e.g. if a half block has vertical curb and gutter, it will not
be oontinuod for the entire block).
• \\!here gaps in any e~isting vertical curb and gutter exist, t.iey will be
filled in with additional vertical curb and gutter. The option of removing
an eldsting se..--uon of vertical curb and gLltt~1 'W'ill also be considered if it
extends for less than one block, and me removal has the unanimous
support of the residents of abutting properties.
B. Pedestrian Walkways
1. Collector streets ,ball be candidates for pedestrian walkways if tl1ere i, space available
outside the existing pavement and within the City street right-of-way. WalkwaY,.na!l
qfbC':;~;Qnnm"-'istreet:,unte$i':~u-:~~ '~~I!':;-..ed 't;'., W~ ~~t fC3identt.
'-"'''"'''''''"''''''''''"''''''''''''''d!'::"Y"",,, ,''',: ","', ."~ ""~ ",,,;J,,, ... ,,,,,,,,,,,,
Walloon"" J{i~~,are""luested. 1hey shaIl be installod in conformance with the
criteria listed in Section C of t.~ese design guidelines.
2. Walkways sha1I not be placed on local streets.
3. In general I collector streets near schools that serve as access to the school shall be
considered a priority ]ocation for pedestrian walkv.'3Ys.
4. Walkway material shall be concrete cr .jl..<;phalt. Concrete wal~ays shaH be colored the
same as the adjac~nt roUed curn.
5. Where walkways are ~~ru flFOpsged, they shall be uniform or. a given street.
6" The minimum walkway .... idtlJ shall be 4 feet.
7. The tIansition from existing standard City sidewalk to newly proposed w41kYw'ay shaH
fellow these guidelines:
• There shall be a one lot transition area of City standard sidewalk along the
side frofltage of properti~ fronting on EJ Camino Real.
6-2
4 ....
• \\!here City standard :;ide\.V31k CJtlSt5 on Barron Park streets, it will not be
extended (~.g. if a half block has City standa;d sidewalk, it will net be
contir.u~ for '.he entire block).
• \\1\ere gaps in any ex isti ng City standard sidewalk ex.ist, they win be
fiUed in with additional City star.dard sidewalk. The option of removing
an existing section of City sta: .. dard sidewalk w:I! also be considered if it
extends for less &oan one block, and the .removal has the unanimous
support of the residents of abutting prvper'.ies.
8. Los Robles Avenue between La Donna Street and Laguna Street has b:een identified as
a location that may accommodate a decomposed gr.anite path due to its sepa..-ation from
the roadway. Approval from the S,.nta Clara Valley Water District would be require<l
for this improvement 'because the p.a.t.~ WGuld be located ",,;thin District right-of-way
above their box culvert.
C. Criteria ror Implementation or Design Guidelines
1. lbt: City will not create a new program to construct drainage and wa!h-ay improvem:nto;
throughout Barron Park all :::.1 once. Improvements will be incorporated into ongoing
City s[onn d.rain, S!:reet resurf?cir:g, and sidewalk projects.
2. Separate design g':.ridelim:.s shall be applied to coUee tor and locai streets.
3. Improvements \Vill be designed to fit within er.:isting right"Of-way.
4. Rolled .curb and pedestrian walkways will only be ,onsidered on streets where a
minimum street width of 36 feet betvw'eer. .curb lines can be maintained for vehicular
tIaffic and parking.
5. Staff will attempt w design drainage fcatures alId pedesllian wal~:wa'ys wit.i.oUt remo .... ing
landscaping or private improvemer.ts such as fences. A walkw3Y will be pl2.ced on eml}'
one side of t.he str~. if necessary, to avoid removlng private encroachments. If,
however, this is not possible, existing improvements or randscaping within the public
right--of-way (except for trees larger than 8" in diameter) will bE; removed in order to
accommodate the ne.w construction.
6. Improvements will be conSi.."1lcted on a block-by-block basis, rather than in a piecemeal
fashion. When drainage or w21l"",'ay improvements are made as part of a capital
imprvvement project, they will be installed to the same limits of work as tho~ of the
overall project, and will be no less than one block in leIlgth.
6-3
•
"
·' .
. -"-
7. Improvemeilts will be designed so as nO! ID adversely affect drainage from private
~.
8. The exact location and exrent of actual improvements will be detem:.ined with
Mighborhood inpLd on a case-by<ase basis. \Vhenever drainage or walkway
im!'f'O'Yements. are proposed. lor streets in Barron Park as p;::rt of a capital improvement
prcje::t, .staff will condoct a public meeting with Li.e residenlS iivir.~ on streets abutting
the work.
9. Single lot residential developers will not be required !{) construct drainage features or
pedestrian walkways. Tn addition, developers wi!! not be required !{) make nor pay any
fee for such improvements as part of multHot residential or commercial projects in areas
without e.xi.sti"g dninage fe:aturu or walkways. However. if s.uch a development is
proposed for an area adjacent J,o existing improvements or includes the construction of
.. new street, the developer will be requlred to consL.-uct 2. drainage feature and/or
pedestrian walb'3y in accordance with t."::e design guidelines.
6-4
"
,
--'''''''---
· ",'
Attach:nent B
P-I
Nov~mher 12, 1975
(Hy of Yalo }lIto
C'Llr,:, .... '.
, • ! e J
Dear l~e ... ' Re:s1dent of Palo Alto:
In _bou: threl'! or fou!' ..... eeks. you -"rill be a res!.de.:'lt c£ the ':ity of Palo
Alto .. As }l..ayor-of the City. I ... 'ould like t.:l .:eleotrlc you and wr-ge yol.l to
take adval"',tage of your neT.: Citizenship h:;r pat't1c1pstir.g in city goverru::lent
and by t.a.king advanr.ag"!! of the broad array of city set'vices \Jhich Palo
A1.t:o hi!.s t.o offe.~
lo.'"it:hin the next. menth, the C1!:y steff \o.-ill be t:.akir.g an e:fort to acquaint
you vith !1o .... the City ~o·,rern:;::.ent f".ltH:tiC:-'S, inc:1uding the role of t.he
City Coun~~l. com:lssions and boar~s, and .ith o~r pla~s for prov!diDg
sen":!.c:e to Earron Park. Ill.!or-...atioo packets '-"'ill be ~eH' ... ered to your
door and ne1shborhood meetings sre bei~g 6che~uled.
We recognize. th.at Barroll J's.::k is a uniqu!'! aT'ea and that yo\,) have .fc..:ght
long and ha.-rc. to retain its spedal. rlJ:-al-like. c.harac=:e:-. \;e 1tl.tl'!:rpr~t
your vote to annex to the City as a vote of cor.fiaence· 1~ the City ana
an expression of faith in thl!! City's lo."'1ll!,ngnees to help pres!'!:"'"."e tbat
charact:er ..... h11e pT'ov1.dit:;,g I h!ghe-: lev~l r::f Eerd.:.e: t1' ... n the COIJ.r.ty ... ·as
able: to offer.
Th.e: City Council 1'.a5 adopted several 'Pol1c1eg ccr.ee':.'T:1.::".g Ea:-rcn Pa::k.
They are: (1) that the. CHy suppo!'t:sI ill pr1::dple the Gle.s!re of !arron
Park to preserve and enhance Barron Park as a res1cential c~==unity ~de.
up predo:nin.e.:ltly of s!ngle-!B.~lly ho::..ea by keepil".g pt@.ser.t P.-l :r:onir.g
i:ltact (Co':.lndluot1c;:) of YAY 11, 1973); ar;c 0) thaO: t~Jf!! 1:~:"nt of this
Cit)" Council is that co 'tree! ... 1de:r.!-::lg c::-saee!. CC:-.5:=-:..;ctior .... "'ill be
u ... ·dertaken fr. Ba:-rotl Park excep:: for r~e~.;rfaci'ng 19 of t!'te .GS stree!.s ir.
crO:e~ to res::ore thel::1 to .. Gcu.l\c!: cot<.d1tic::: for l::.lI.:!:-;tcna::-.ce:. and reconstruc
tion of Q s~ll stre~ch ef P8ra~1ge ~ey; tnet no curbs: ~tters or Bi~e
'Walks v!.ll be reqUired Oil already ded1c:a~e~ streets; s:-.~ that be!ore
£arron Park ~on1ng 1& co~prehetl5ive!y rev!ewec, no de:lser lane use thao
that lo"h1ch is 2lready accepta.ble tro.cer present county zcr:1ng "'"ill bE:
allO\led (Council mot1co, April a, 1975). Ba"aon Park "'-ill be i!lcor
ponlted into Pale Alto's Co=.p.eheosive Plan, ",hid". is ctlrrer.t~y lioder-
going revie~ by the Plan~ing C~ss1cn.
In conclusion, we v~Ico~e Barron Pa.K to. Palo Alto ancl ~e sgree ~ith the
propo~1tioo that Sat:ron Park should kef'? its 0· .. ;: special identity.
?-2
t~~~
:'S'>: .'
"';
,.'t;.
l
,
~-
. --
ACt3-:!"!llle().t C
Apj.oePdlx E summary of City Council and Finance Committee Meetings
SliIfi'i~..-..nl rq>or!$ ""the City Council and the Finance Commi_ (and its
~,IIIioFJnante and Public Works Comminee> eluring the ~ of the l!.arrot1
~~~$1rtetUesip(J,Jiddines .• The foUowing is a $Ommaryof_ reports and
the Wli.' ... 'IId!tie CouUciI and COmmitt<e meetings,
..
~. ~~. 1990 Fmorice and. Public Works Commi_ ..-ing
tcMR:slO:(1) ..
DieSGtf.JeP:irt~ the&m>n P2rIr As.."""'tjoo', opostd 'StR!et S\andards' ~t~!:iliit<lell1hatthe Commi._ direct sWf Ie ~ a capital imptt>vem¢n!
pro,jectk\deveIoP eilhei an. ·overaIlstreet improvement plan for Barron Parle or
~]lian.!or .., illdiVidual S1leel in. Barron ParI<.
~Fiiiai>ci>and Pliblk Work$ Commiu.Oe directro s.affk> return 10 the Commiu..e wiIh ~~.fpi' hiring • <XlriSUh'nl to ~ stn.'et OOign guiaeunc. for new projects i~
~Parf-
~ •. ~ •• ~. ~ cost information for hiring a oonsuJranl.1o develoP street
~.;;;:,""'~ .. roE Barron .. I'ark.. -... ~ .... ~ ...... .
'!'he. ~·and .Public WoIh Coinmiu<e ~mmend<d to. Council that a IIat!on·Parli
~I).."!antstudy be incltide4 in the FY 1991-92 budget. The llarron ParX Drainage and
Srioet lniprovement Guidelines project was conseq"""lly (~in the 1991-92 Capitd
Improvement Program budge\.
~.;. · ..•• ~3,1991 Czty Council meeting
(qMrt407:91)
Staff JOCOajmencled that the City COuncil ... -.ro a consuJtant agreement to CH2M Hill
i;;ilifdinia.lnc. to develop Barron Park Drainage and SII<ct Design uu;delines.
The ~t was approved by Council.
E-l
J
[
~
I
,j
!
'l' 'J
1A '-A
~., 0.'
~,::'i
ji~.: ........• , .... ~l" ifl tot ~I
r IIi il~'~'·. .... . . . ;1'1' l~ i;J ; .. '~.'~ ...... '~J' .. ;e., .. "., .,.'c.;~ .. ~, ,".' .. "~,'.' , •.... , .. , ..... ' .•.... , .!j.~ .. . i.Y.:~ -::~r<.--' __ '~-ii ;' ~ -~ J':_,';'; -' -.!::to; !D'''' i
l· .. · J'.'.i'.'.·f~.·!···· ....... ' .. i "I";;"~
r~ .. ia.· •. if .... t~;. , .. ? r,
~ Ii¥.1 ~.~. ..~ :~·lj.·U
"'t""· !Ii'i, f5 1U .~~~·:.ID~tn lr""~ . ~. ~ t: ! ~lllf IJaj .~li!(1 i'l~l~. fJ .... ·,"i.t l' .. ~ ~ ;,\1-1
[ 'If ~ S' =-lr
... .,.,,,.......... '. . . .. '" . .... , .. ,
·11.. • •...... . . _
I if jJj lfd J
If J, I' lll,if
{ifJjJ
H "Hi
• f IIi 1]. III
~ .
·1
1 .j
I ,
\'
" ~:' "
.',
•
,\
-.. ----------------------~----~-
. '
"
I
~
I Barron Park Drainage and Street
r Design Guidelines
I
I
l
.. ~. .
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Prepared by
CHMHIIJ..
F,bl"Wilry 1993
•
· ... ··.·.···1 ..... j
j
i
i
• I
I Barron Park Drainage and Street
I Design Guidelines
I
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Pnpared by
ClfMHIIl
February l!/ll3
, "
t
I CONTENTS
Page"
Preamble. _ ........................................... . P-I
Executive Summa£)' ........................................ E-l
1 IntrOOuC1ior. .......................................... , . .. I-I
2 Commuruty Meeting No. I ..... _ .. _ ... _ .... _ .... _ .... _ .... _ .. 2-1
3 Survey . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . ... 3.1
4 Community Meeting No.2 ........ _ ......... _ ............ __ .. 4-1
5 Community Meeting No.3.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. • .. . . . . . .. • • .. • .. 5.1
6 Design Guidelines .................. --.................... .
FIGURES
1 Barron Park Map
2 Rolled Curb and Valley Gutter
Appendix A. Meeting No. 1 Summary
Appendix B. Survey Results
Appendix C. Meeting No.2 Summary
Appendix O. Meeting No. 3 Summary
Appendix E. Summary of City c.,uncf] ar;d Finance Committee Meetings
lOOI~DDSfU
6-1
Preamble
The lIaITon Park Drainage and Street Design Guidelines are the result of. cC{)perative effort
between tlle. City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and Lie residents of Barron Park. The
City recognizes and is committed to preservirlg the rural character of the Barron Park
neignbothood. These guidtlincs de not establish a new City program to cunstruc-t street and
drainagt improvements throughout BarTen Park. Rather they spell out ~ow improvements will
be. made once it has been determined that they are acceptable to the community as well as
functional. In tlle spirit of the ler.er written by W...ayor Stanley Norton rcHowing t~e annexation
of Barron Park into the City of Palo Alto in 1975 (see page P-2), it is the policy of the City to
not install pedestrian walkways in &rrun Park except where it is dearly the desire of the
c<>mmunity, Valley gutters will be ""nstruoted only to OO!TOOt drainage or stIeet deterioration
problems as a part of other City project', City sWf will solicit input from lIaITon Park residents
in u;e future as specific improvements are proposed,
POl
" .. '"
'.
Cit~ of Tal 0 )1lto
Peat' Ne10l R.e:sid'ene o! Palo Alt-el:
. • .... c •• you '~ll -. a resider:t of the City of r.al0 In about cn~ee o~ ~our _ ~ ~~ ~ A1~o. As Hayer of the City, I vould like to ~elc~e ye~ a~d urge y~~ t~
take ~dva~tag~ of your new eitize~$h1p by participating ia city gover~nt
and by taking advantage of th~ 'broad ana-y of cHY $i!t"Vi~l!!$ '\1'hic1': Palo
Aleo ha~ ~~ efter.
'W.1t.hi:"l the ne'lI;:t month, th~ City ~uff 1.."111 he: ~k1:;.g an effc::rt tc a::q.uait:~
you with nov t'h~ City g~vc!n:'.-eetl: !'.J!)etto~St ttl.c.l~d1n3 the tole of t~e
Cit), Cout\(.tl~ t;~iu:t.Q.ns 4<;'1.d: btJa.rGs, ilnd \Ci~b 't'lJ't r>l~:'.$ fOT: p;ro .... :ie1'Cg
~e:rvice tc ta1:t'on f.,-'k. t;;:;fo:nu.tio~ padH! f","111 be Qeltve-red to your
do~r ~n~ n~ighbQrbced ~~eti~gQ 4te b~1Bg $e~e~uled~
~e re~Qgn~t~ tha~ ~4~rQn fs~~ is & uni~oe ~r~a aa~ tb~t you have .!~~ght
lQng and b&;d tG ret£1n its Jpe~t.l. r~r81-1ik~ eh4rA~t~=~ ~~ 1at~rp~et
rout 'V~t:f: to .tant!;x tel the City &s a vote of C:Ql'lH~.net!:' in the C1ty tll'ld
an .,;preuloD of faith in the Ctty', ~~ll:t:'J.gnus to hl!lp l'res~n'e that
ch~rAete~ ~h11~ providi~g • higher lev~l of service than the CQ~nty ~ ••
ltblt. to cfhr.
!he City C~u~cl1 has .~opted .~ve~.l ro11e1~' ccn~tr~~~j !a~~on t.rx.
!hey &~e~ (1) that the City .upPQ~;a iu prin~ipl~ the d~91rt of !ar~on
Park eo pt.enrvt" And IJ!!:tl.hal1el!. :e.artoti h.'~'k .... rutl!enttAl c.o:.=unity tIA..!.e:
U? pre~Q~inaetly ~f 61nale-f~ly h~a ~y k~ep1ns p:c&e~t l-l lOving
1t'n~.aet (Council Ulotlon "f Y,..y 11., 1913) i &~d 0,) that t!ie: int .. nt cf thillJ
Ci~y Co~n~11 i& ~b~t a~ &t~eet widcn1ug Q~ dtre~t C~~s~ruc~io~ ~~11 b~
u~dert&kett i~ !4~~on ?rk e$~~,t !O~ r •• ~~fae1n( 19 Qf the ~9 stre~tl in
ord~c to ~~.to~~ th~ to • ~oun4 t~aJt~1ott {or ~int~nbn~e, A~d ~~~Q~atru~~
tten of A s~ll Gtretch c! r~ra~t~e W~1; :h.~ nQ CU~b8, ~t~~r. Q~ a1de
valL4 will b~ re1~ire4 ~ .lr •• d! dedl~at~~ ttteets; and tbat b~fore
!&rr~e la~k ~Qninl i. ~ompteh~~.~~t!, rev!~v.ar ~Q den$~r land cse t~ac
that vhi~b if already 4ccept&ble u~4er preseec coonty zoning v111 be
.ll~~a (C~uec11 mctio~, Ar~11 2l, 1975). Ba~~o~ r~rk vil! be ieeor~
por;u:l!:d il:'lto hr:lo .... It¢ I!I CC)1llprehctlodvt Plan, which ts: c:urrt!:tltl, unde:--
8oin! revie~ by the Planning ~1~siDU.
In eon~lu$lcn. ~e v~le~~e Barron Pa~k to PalD Alto «nd V~ .gree vith th~
propositiQQ that Barron Park should ~.e~ its o~'SF~ci~l identity.
Si'tl.ce-re:l, •
(::JILJJ t:I/;~~ ~~~Oi.TON
Kay.en
-;', .•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
t ,
--.'
Executive Summary
Study Background and Purpose
In response to Barron Park residents' objectior.s to the use of City standard \lertica.J
curb~ gutter. and ~idewalk in their neighborhood, the City Council directed the Public
Works Depanment to work with the commun~ty to d-::-,velop a set -of aIternat"ve street
design guid< Une ..
!he r1~sign guidelines will provlde guidanc~ to prr. .... dte developers and L."'"!e City regard
Ing acceptable desi~ for drainage, walkways., and other street features. The guidelines
will be used in the dc!.ign of new developments or City projects such as street resurfac
ina: and drainage improvements in Barron Park. The guidelines nre intended to define
and protect the intep"-.-sts of Barron Park residents as local improvements and develop
ment <xA.-un.
The Public Works Depamnent contracted with CH2M HTIL to assist in developing the
design guideline ..
Ovemew of Approach/Activities
To develop drainage and .treel design guideUnes that represent community intere.ts
snd concerns, three community meetings were conducted and a mail-in questionnaire
suzvey was developed and mailed to Barron Pack residents. Based on l'Ommunity inp ul
from .be meetingo and the swvey. recommeoded design guidelines were developed for
Barron Pack.
Summary of Issues
Several issues and conCCJ1U. were identified m the first meeting. There was strong sen~
timent amoog many at the meeting thaI no change. should be made in Barron Park in
order to preserve the existing neighborhood character. Safety and drainage w<ro a
concern for the residents interested in some change. There was strong opposition to
vertical curbs and sidewalks in Barron Park. Rolled curbs or valley gutlers appeared to
be favored Aestbetically, white concrete was not considered acceptable as a construc
tion rnalerial-new gutters and/or walkways should blend with local conditions. If walk
ways are to be oonsidered, residents were interested in mean.dering ,"alkways that pre~
serve elisting landscaping.
The survey results also indicated that many residents fa\lored no change to Barron Park
streets. Among those fa\loring some changes, drainage, Mfery. and riclier appearance
were the key issues. SlJrvey respondents preferred that any impro\lements be
lOO1cnDF.sFO E-!
"
! ,
. .' d ; and street resurfacing plOj:ectS I Vers'L!~ any incorporated utto ongomg Crty storm. rain t alJ at onte
new program which would implement lmpr'L'Vemo:n s .
. . " 'd ntifed in the survey were presemed. Some
In the second meeting. pnanty ISsues. I e I d d "gn guide!;ne.s a~d some re3idems
residents questioned the n~ed for the stud~'. an f ~Sl t during' re~e~ and appr0val of
were concerned about contmued opportunllles or mpu
. . . da 'th the guhJeJines. Other concerns tentered around proJects designed Ul accor nce Wl ffi d f N . "tua an interest in more detailed informatic-n about ~!Ie drainage~ tra C, an sa.e,] ~l •
. th "00' of des;~' guidelines to collector streets versus local streets, and the '.1on; e appllC8 n -0-" •
how th~ streets were being classified; and a.e-sthetlcs.
In the third community meeting. key issues and general co(iditio~ fr?m the fu;t t\1o"?
. . cd, and priori tv issues to be included in the guldelmes were ident]· meetmgs. ~re rCVICW 'J".:. .. h d h t; lied. The criteria for the imolementatlOn 01 the guIdeline. establlS e al I e mee .ng
have oeen incorporaled into' the recommeD.ded design guldelin~. [t ~ agreed t~at
the design of an acruaJ project would be revtewed by affected residents pnor to finaliz·
ing at the design.
Recommendation
Based on the =USSion with Darron park residents and the input received through
surv.:y responses, the project t""m bas developed proposed drainage and street design
guidelines fa. future improvements in Barron Park. The guideline. include ".arrame
descriptiOIlJ that provide overall guidance, intent, and priorities when perfornnng fu>.al
project design. The guidelines also include sample drainage feature detail drawings,
The Barron Park Drainage and Streel Design Guideline, are presented in Section 6 of
this ropon. The guidelines can be divided into three basic section.: (1) drainage fea·
tures, (3) pedestrian walkwaY'. and (3) criteria for implementation,
Drainage features will be installed on BarTon Park streets only when needed 10 snlve
drainage or pavement deterioration problem<. Rolled curb will be used as the drainage
feature for collector streets only in conjunction wilh a pedestrian walkway. A valley
gutter will be used to correct drainage problems where a walkway is not constructed.
The transition from existing drainage features to newly proposed drainage features is
outlined in the guidelines. Collector .treets shall be candidale. for pedestrian walkways
if there is space available outside the e:risting pavemenl and within the city street right
or~y. Walkways shall not be. constructed, on any street unless they are requested by
adjacent resIdents. The entena for gwdeline Implementation provide a !lexJble pro
gram for tho timing and location of improvements. They are designed 10 ntinimize
impacts to residents and an"", the community to playa key role in making decisions
regarding future improvements.
E·2
Section 1
Introduction
Backg ro u nd and Pu rpo se
During reC~,nt reviews of new developments in Rarron Park, residents of the area have
c"Pressed concerr.s to the City Council aoout the US(: of City standard vertical clifb,
gutter, and sidewalk in their neighbcrhood. Responding to these cQn<:erns, the Council
directed the Public Wo~ks Department to work with the community to devekJp a set of
a]teonative dr?inage and street design guidelines for U'ie in Earro!] Park.
The design guidelines will provide guidance to develope" and the City regarding ac
ceptable designs for drainage, walkways, and Q,her street features. The guidelines will
he used in the design of new developmt:Dts or City projects such as streec resurfacing
and drainage improvements in Barron Park. The guidelines are intended to define and
protect the interests of Barron Paxk residents as local improvements and development
oceu.--s,
The Public Works Department contracted witt, O!ZM HILL to assist in developing the
design guidelines.
Study Approacb
To develop drainage street design guidelines thaI represent community interests and
concerns, several key activities were conducted to involve Barron Park residents. An
initial community meeting was scheduled to identify issces, concerns, and interests
related to street de.sign. A mail·in Questionnaire survey was developed and IDaIled ~o
Barron Park residents, Working with City staff, O!ZM HILL then developed
preliminary street design concepts based. on concerns and i.ssue~ raised at the first
commwrity meeting ar,d in the survey rcspcrues. A second community meeting was
conducted to present preJin:inary survey results and to dis<;u." the preliminary design
concepts and prioriti... A third commWlity meeting was conducted by City staff to
identify the specific issues to be included in the guidelines. This report summarizes
these activities and provides recc.mmended drainage and street design guidelines for
Barron Park.
lOOl~E.lSFO I, I
Section 2
Communi~y l\'1eeting No.1
Format ap.L1 Attendante
The initial comm1lni!y meeting ..... as. held at the Hoover School on Barron AVeTlue in Barron
Park on Thursday, ~'Iarch 26, 1992, ~rom 7:00 to 9:00 p,m. Joe Teres'l, P;:do Alto Public
Works Senior Engmeer, pro"'ided arE over·,rie .... " of the project an(~ the purpose of the
meeting. Mark Johnson and Charles Gardiner from CH2M HTLL led di!>Cussion of
community issues. relaled to street d':sign, The meetlr.g was attended by 52 local residents.
The meeting summary is included in Append:x A.
Presentation and Discussion
The p;oject team presented a.nd discussed the key Issues and elements c,f ~treet rlesign
glJide1ines. For each issue. discussion focused or:; developing a complete understanding of
local preferences and concerns. The issues. and elements discus~ included these topics:
• Street Uses-Automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and parking
• Drainage-Local drainage and connection to the Citywide storm drainage
system
• Aesthetics-EAisting neigtlborhood character, landscaping. and surface
materials
• Maintenance-Needs, costs, and o·~'neriClty res.ponslbilities
• Cost-Consln.lction cos.ts and source of funds
• Righl-of-way-Definillg boundaries and how to use available right-of-way
The team then described and discussed four alternative approaches for designing drainage
improvements at the edge of the street. The four alterndtives were presented to describe
the rang:e of possible approaches. for discussion purposes (,.,ly. The four alternatives
inclu.ded these approache~:
•
• •
•
IOOIO.5E4.SFO
Vertical curb and gutter
Rolled curb
Valley gutter
Dilch and culvert
2
The learn concluded by e~plain~ng that these gL!ideiLnes \i.'oL:!d ?e ?ppli~d as fl,;.tule pr~jecTs
'I d' n p'" T"·<· pru,ieC!5 cCluld l:1cllJde r.:pJ.\lng:. draltlage are lmp rmen(e In .::>arron an" Ih .. ""-j -I .
improvements, side .... a!k improvc'Tlellts, new development!', or other lxa :mprovements,
Key Issues
Several issues and ..:oncems were identitied dli;ing ~h"! course of the rneetir.g. These 15sues
are briefly prest.:ll'!d here
No Change
There was srTOl'Ig sentiment among several res.idents at [he meeting that :-10 changes sh~u~d
be made in Barron Park. Many expn::ss...""Cl. thai the} moved to BarTon Park bt:cause It 15
unique in Palo Aim. TMey belie~e that the ru.ral character and feel of the neighborhood are
attractive and should nor be changed. They requested tha{ the elY not impose the same
standards in B.mon Park that are applied in other parts. of Palo Allo.
Preserve the Existing Neighborhood Character
]n discussing the concern aoout no charlge in Barron Park in more detail. many residents
reemphasized the character of the neighborhood ao:. an important feat1Jre. There is a rural
feel to Barron Park that residen~ want to preserve. Import.a.nt aspects of the rural feel are
the trees and landscaping, the desirability of w<1.llGng through :ne neighborhood {many take.
evening strolls), and non-uniform slree[ edge treatments. Some re .. idents noted that
puddles after ralnstorms also ccntributf'! to the rural feel.
SaCety
Many residents noted that 5.afety is an impon3ilt consideration for s.ome 'Meets in Bar:on.
Parle.. Traffic exceeding t~e speed limit on th.e bu~ier streets, the narrowness of some
streets, and safet~' in the vl'-.:in.i!y of tn;! local schools were s~ltically mentioned as
con£:ems. lmproved enforcement of trafflc laws and better separation of bicycling and
walking frem dnving ar~. on busie~ ~treets were suggested. Others noted that safety was
not a concern, and the abllrty to walK 1n the street was a desirable ft::!.ture.
Drainage
Many residents Doled that local drainage is a probJem in Barron Park. Discussion fOCused
on the need to collect water on lhe surface and to provide a means to carry the water away
fro~ ar~ where large puddles form. Others did not fe.el that drainage was a problem Oil
their parucu tar street.
HlOt05E-4 SFO 2-2
.. ;
Edge Treatment
There \oIlas sirong oppositiof1 to verticai curbs and sidewalks in Barron Park. There was a
perception by .s.ome residents that th;s project was intended to itl1po~ sidewalks on Barron
Park against their wishes. Se ... eral longtime r;!s~dents noted lhat (here was a commitmem
from Palo Alto during annexation procedures Iha! the City would ne,'er impc~ sidewalks.
on the neighborhood. Residents do not wa,'''a Barron ?-.Hk to look l'tke the rest of Palo Alto.
Rolled curbs or ..... <llle)! gutters appeared 10 be fa .... 'ored.
Construction Materials
]:n discussing potential construction materiafs for drainage features and w2:ikways. residents
at the meeting indicaled that materials showld blend wilh local cO:lditions. V/hite ~oncrele
is not an acceptable material.
Other Aesthetics
Residents suggested that, to the ex lent possible, street designs be non!inear. ParticuLar
discus~ion focused on the feasi.bllity of providing I",.eandering w'alkways tha.t preserve
existing landscaping and are conSis.tenl with varying .... 'idlh~ of riglll-of-way.
IOOl{),fE4,5fO 2-3
~ ...
I
Settion J
Survey
}<'ormut and Distribution
following {he initial commu.nity meeting, CH2M HiLL, work.ing ..... !th the Put-lie Work.s
Department, developed. a mail-Ln questionnaire slJ.r\'e, to be di;,.tributed to, Barron Park
residents. Ttle survey was crealed to) ens.ure that ail Barron P~rll res.idems had an
opportunity to provid(: input, e."pre55 con,'ems, and offer sllgge<jl1ons for street design
guidelines. The format of the .survey was designed as ;,ttl tntlrrmal rfleans to lden1.tfy
pnorit)' concerns related 10 slreet design and preference!! timong possible solutions. The
survey was not designed as a sdemiflc..ally accurate or statjsticall:~ vatid rcpres.c:ntation of
communily i;"lieresis.
On April 22, the four-page sUf\'ey and a COI,'er letter from Joe Teresi were mailed to 1,670
Barron Park households within the area del.~neated on the attached map (Figure 1). A
busi,ness reply return envelope \.I·as also inchided to further encourage re-sponY.'s.
Responses
By June 1st, 545 surve)l~ had been ~omplete6 and retmncd. Of these 545 responses, 124
were received fiOm residents on the ~ollecror streels as defined by the City's
Comprehensive Plan {Matadero AvenlJe, Lo'i Robles Avenue, Amaranta Avenu.e, Laguna
Avenue, Ma)lbell A .... enue. and Coulombe Dri\le). The remaining 411 responses were from
residenLs of the other streets in Barron Park.
The results provided some additional d1rection for developing th(: des.ign guidelines.
Coupled with discussions at the initial corrmuni!y meeting. the 5uney helped clarify street
deslgn issues. The project team then developed preljn:linar~ design gl.!:delines that
combined engineering and: COS! factors with the COr:1Inl.lfl'lty irJput ,~ecel\ied through the
meeting and survey. The prelimi;1.aJ)' desigr, glJide~jr.~s were the copic of discussion a! the
second commun~t)l meeting.
Results and Conclusions
The General results and conclusions frorn the survey responses are summarized below. The
tabulations of 5urv~y rt":>opcmes are inch.:ded in /\ppendjx B.
lOOIOjE".SFO 3-1
No Change
Numerous res.p~mdenls 'ndi.:ated .)n lheir :!!li~,e)'s that lh~y did ['Jot wan; any change 10
Barron Park. s;ree!~, Of the 5.1) reSp0ii5l'S, 237 {43 percer,!) [~'" .of t:~A-(JS perce~t) on
collector streets and 193 of 421 (46 percent) or: aiher street'il wdlcated at wme p01n! on
their sur.'ey :hat "no change-was their preference.
Important Issues
Drainage was cited. as the most important result to be achieved through design guidelines
for ~-ron Park streets (295 yeses), Safety and tidier appearance also received strong
positive support (2.23 and 212 yeses, respectively).
Residents on "b'Js.y· streets indicated that safc!y and waiking. followed by drainage 'IoII-ere the
most significant resulu to be a'hi~ ... 'ed by the guidelines. ',I,'hile resider:ts of "quiet" street,
ldenrified drainage as the most significar.t issue.
Street Uses
For "busy" SU"eeIS, driving, walk.ing. and bicycling were noted as the mm~t important uses
(322, 322. a.,d 302 yeses, r~specti .... ely). For "quid" streets walking and drainage ~'ere
listed as important uses (261 and 249).
Busy Stret'ts
The seven busiest streets listed by residents included Los Robles Avenue (391), Matadero
Avenue (276), Barron Avenue (220), Laguna Avenue (183), Amaranta A""enue (139), La
Don"a Street (103), and Maybell Avenue (85).
Drainage Control
Rolied curb a.'ld .... alley gutter were noted as preferred dra:nage control approaches (143 and
247 yeses, respectively),
Pedestrian Walkways
~en as~ :w-here pedestrian walkways were preferred., respondents indicated two areas of
highest pnonty; on bus)' streets and near schools.
Walkway l\faterillis
No cl~ preference was indicated by respondents for walkwav materials Listed'
of posllwe .suppon, the materials were as.phalt (217) i:oncret; (.., 1 " I d . . m or~er
(206), and gravel (183), ,-•. ecomposed grdnlle
IOOIWE1.SfO 3-2
Design Factors
Maintajnabi[;ty (307) aJ".d cast (265) were ciled as the mo,,~ important facters to consider
when devetoping design guidelines.
Vertical Curbs, Gutters, and SidEwalk
\Vhen asked where vertical curbs;. gutters, aild sidc\Io'alk lire appropriate. residents noted
th.2t they are apprOp;1ate un the sides of lo[s froming on El Camirlo Real ~224 yeses) or
nowhere (201 yeses),
Maintenance
There was str.:lng wiilingnel:ls among residents to provide upkeep for off~<;tree: park:ng and
walking areas (303 yeses, 181 noe,).
Urgency
Residents stated a preference for making improvements as other s.treet or drainage
improvements are made rather than immediately [l03 1 's (immediately) and 226 5'5 (when
other improvements are madeH. The average was 3.48.
IOOIO~E"/,S.FO
, Jt'
I
I
I
I
Section 4
Community l\leeting No.2
Format and Attendance
The second '::ofwlluni!y meeting was held on Thurs.d.ay. May 21. 1992, at Ihe Hoover
School on Barron Avenue in Barron Park from 7:00 to 9:00 p.iT1. Joe Teresi provided 2
brief introduction atld a r~view of the puf1X!se of the siudy and the m~etil'1g. M2.1k Johnson
and Charles Gardiner presemed the resul15 of the prel'ious community mcetir.g and the
mail-in questioMaire survey and led discussion about the preliminary street d:sign
guidelines. The meeting was attended by 73 residents. The meer.ing summary :5 im:luded
in Append;x C.
Presenlation
Chartes Gardiner reviewed the key isslles and general conclusions from the fi::-s.t commu:1it),
meeting. He went on 10 present ihe preliminary results of the survey. Ba.s.ed on th~ initial
community meeting and the survey results. the foll'Owing priority is.sues were identified and
presentej:
• Community'\O\:ide PriQrities
Maintain Ex:i'iling RuraJlRustic Feel
Minimize Change
Low Main tenanc~
.II Priorities for Busy Streets
Safet)'
Drainage
\Valking Areas
Tidier Appears:1Ce
• Priorities for Quiet Streets
Drainage
Safety
Tidier Appearance
Waiking Areas
S os 'dents questioned the statistical validity of the survey results and the aGvisability orner, .. ,_" h f of dr-dwing conclusions from the responses. The projoct team rellerale-<.l tual t e purpose 0
4-1
lOOIO~EF,SfO
r . . " and gt.lidJnCr~ 1"0]' ,jc'. elopir1g design the survey I,I,.'as EO provide general t:'llorma-,~on. lr.pW\,. ~ ~ .
. . . d d, b a bindmg vo!e 0:1 anern:1t;\'~::'. gUIdelines. The s:.Jr;.~y was not ween e 0 e
Mark Johnson then presented the follo ...... 'lng general goals idt>ntified for each !'.tr~t design
feature:
Landscaping Mainta!n existing trees and landscaping
Drilling
Walking
Bicycling
Drainage
Parkin:
Allow safe, efficient vehicle travel
Busy Street~-Crea!e separate waiking area to trnprove safety
Quiet Streets.-Walking area car. be shared wilh dri'lring and park.ing
areas
Busy Streets-Allow (or bicyclir.g area
Quiet Streets-Cyclists shiire road with vehicles
Busy Streets-Rolled curb preferred to provide separation between
autos and pedestrians
Quiet Streets-Valley gutter preferred
Low priori ty for change
The team then presented proposed narrdlive guidelines to be induded as part of the design
~lJidelines. The proposed narrative guidelines included these statements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IOOtOjEF,SfO
Maintain e;{isting landscaping
Work: 'Within eXlsting right-of-way
Pavement width to remain at least a wide as existing pavement
lmprovemenlS not to ad .... ersely affect drainage from private properties
Improvements to be jmplement~ as part of ongoing projects
rmpro~'emenlS not to be ~Tl1plemented in a pi,:cemeaJ fashion, mir;imum one
block improvements
1 ransaion from EI Camino Real with vertical curb and sidewalk to a
distance of one lot deep
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Fill in ex:.s.ting gaps I,OTiC' or two lots) at vertica! curb and side",alk; do nor
extend ,'en~cal c\.lTb and ~ide\O\.'alk
The team lhen presented twa propcsed CfOSoS sections, one for quiet s.treets and one fer
bU:!IY stree!.~. General acceptance af th:: prolJOsed cross ~.ec~tons appearoo to develop,
although wncerns. remained ii;bou; tnt need for irnpro'~'ement:!l and ho\lo. the guideline.s. ..... ilJ
be appHed to ~pe'CtnC streels..
Ke~ (ssues
During the com;rlUnity meeting. sevem hsues of concern were identit:ed and discussed.
The key issues included these topics:
Study Purpose
Some residents questioned the need for the study and the e5t.4b1is.hmcnt of desi¥o
guideliIles. Some were concerned about conttnued opporltmitj~s for input curing re .... 1ew
and approval of speciti..: projects designed in accordance ..... ·'lth the gt.:lde!lne~.
Drainag~
Some residents questioned the r.1agnitude of the draindge problem and noted that some
simple steps may be slifticient to aJ!e ... ·lale problems. Others lImed that additiollal
informat.km about dra~nage prob[ems i'5 needed a!id solutions mus,t be -cooid1nated wilh lhe
Storm Drain Master Plan project.
Traffic and Safety
Some resldents continued to nole th~t \here are traffic and safety CO:1;,:ems in Ban-on Parle
Others noted thai additional documentation of traffic and s.afety problems is needed.
Transition from EI Camino Real
Some discussion focused. on tht plans for transition from curb and gutter on EI Camino
Real to an alternative drainage featllre in Barron Park. General c\Jrt)emu'S developed
around a one-lot transition area.
Application of Design Guidelines
Methods for apptying {he design guidelines were discussed al. le.1gth. .'Nllile gene.ral
acceptance of the proposed approaches. seemed to devel.op, quesllOns remal~ .about ~'hjch
s.treets "Will be considered busy ru1d WhlCh s.treets are 'tUlet. In s.ome ca.<.es, It was {Xllnled
out O1at a single street may be busy in one part and quiet in another.
lOOIO.~EF SFD
4-3
\
Aesthetics
MID!} residents reiterated that any
blend wllh existing surrounding~.
--
new ... 'alley gutters or rolled Ct~rt,) ~.hOL11d be coioro:d to
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Set:Uun .~
Communit), l'Ileeting No.3
Format and Attendance
The third community meeting was held on Tuesday. September ~9. 1992. at the Hoover
Sc1i~1 on ~on Avenue In Barror. Park f~om 7:00 to 9:00 p,m, Georg.e Bag.don,
Assistant Director of Pl.!bii<: Works, provided a brief introduction and .a review of the
puryose of the s.tudj and the meeti:ilg. loe Teresi presenled [he results of [he tw'o previous
community meetings atld themail-inquestionnairesurveyandleddi:)l;:.us.iion about !he
recommendation'S for drainage and Streel desigr. gudeiines. The meetin2 was altend'ed by
62 residents. The meeting summary is included i.n A.ppendix. D. ....
Presentation
roe Teresi revie ...... ed the key lSSl..IeS and general condusiol1$ from the two prev~ous
community meetings. He went on to present recommendations for the drainag~ features,
pedestrian walkways, and the criteria to be used to implemenl the desigr guidelines.
Abbreviated results of the survey wt;:re used to promote discussion leading to tlle conren! of
the guidelines.
Drainage Features
Three options for the-drainJ.ge fe<.ture type were discl>ssed: rolled curb, valley gutter or
maintaining the existing condition. Tn general, it was agreed that the guidelines £hou!d
provide that tocat streets Wl.l! receive a ,·alley gutter and coll~tor s'L~els wltl recei\le a
rolled gutter. Maintaining the existing condition of a street {e.g., no drainage features)
Will also be ronsidered ar. option. Local residcnrs will have an Gpportunity [0 review
specific improvements proposed for a particular street before the design is fil1al:zed.
Discussion regarding the transHion from exi:-sting drainag:! features (e.g .. \ert.cal curb and
gutter) and the cOlor of \he d!"1Jnage features. and pedes.tria.n walkw'ilYs, al":)CI occurred. A
medium gray color ~'.as identified as most acceptable for drainage features and walkvv'ays.
Transition guidelines were diSCUSsed for areas adjacent to El Camino Rea1 and areas where
vertical curb and gutter exist on Barron Park streets. The results of the discu'5)io:-l are
c10cumented in Ole design guidelines.
Pedestrian Walkwa)'s
The discussion regarding walkways concluded with the decision. to conslder concrete or
asphalt walkways on collecTOr streets only If the right-or-way aru1 Olher physlcal conditions
per-nit.
11)Q105FI.SFO
5-\
•
lmplemenlation
Six criteria for the implementation of the gu:.delliles were eSlab"tlshcd ar:d have beer.
incorporaled into Section S, Design Guideiines, of this document.
Next Steps
Residents were advised that the process and the decisions made t;~ produce the design
guidelines would be formalized in a report and presented to the Cily's finai1ce Committ!!t'
on October 27,1992, Ifapproved. the Committee would then ~ecommend to City Council
thar the deugn guideli!1es be approved and recognized as a guide for designing projects in
the Barron Park area.
lOOJa.'lFI SFQ 5-2
. >
Section 6
Design Guideline.~
Conci usions
Sa,sed on the discussion with Barron Park residents and tt,;e inpu.t received through survey
responses, the project team has developed proposed .treet design guideline. for futcre
improvem~nts in Barron Park. The guidelines include narrative descriptions L'1at provide overall
gUldance, l!Ilent, and priorities for the design of projecu in Barron Park. The guidelines also
include sample drainage feature detail drawing. (see Figure 2).
The guidelines can be divided into three basic sections: 1) drainage features, 2) pedestrian
walkways, and 3) criteria for implementation.
Narrative Guidelines
A. Drainage Features
1. Three option. for drainage feature type are available:
2.
3.
• Roiled cum (on coljector streets with walkway)
• Valley gutter (on 10C<!! .treeU and on collector streeU with no walkway)
• Maintain the existing condition
Drainage features will be irutailed on Barron J>.uk streeU only when needed to solve
drainage or pavement deterioration problems.
Rolled curb v--ill be used as the drainage feature for collector streets 9~ in conjunction
with • pedestrian walkway. A valley gutter will be used to cortecl drairoage problem.
where a walk\l;'aY is nO( ccnstructet!.
Drainage features shall be installed in 3c-cordane-e with the criteria listed in Section C of
these design guidelines. Valley gutters .haJJ be placed at the outside edge of existir.g
pa .... ement in a manner that is as linear as poSSIble and minimizes roadway narrowing or
wideaing. In order to provide adequate space for vehicle parking, rolled curbs shall h
placed such thal there is a mini mum of 36 feet from the back of one curb to the back of
U •• opposite curo.
Drainage features shall be oonstructed :with concrete mixed with 4 pints of carbon blnck
for each cubic yard of roncrete to achle .... e a medIum shade of gray.
6-1
•
4.
.. . . 'cal rb d gut',rto newt\{ proposed drainage features The tranSJtlon from eXlstmg vertJ cu an • '~
<hall follo," these guidelines:
•
•
There shall be a one lot transition area of vertical ,('urb and guttt.r along
the side frontage of properties ficmting on El Cammo Real.
Wflcre vertiC4l curb and gutr.er txis.ts on Barron ?ark streets, ~t w~n not
be extended (e.g. If a half bloc!: has vertical curb and gutter. It w,lI not
be continlloo for the entire block).
Where gaps in .. ,y existL~g vertical curb and gutter exist. they will be
filled in wi1t additional vertical curb and gutter. The opnon of removmg
an existing section of vertical cu:i) and gutter will also be con"dered if it
extends for less t .... an one block, a..'ld. the removal has the unanimous
support of the residents of abutting properties.
B. Pedestrian Walkways
I.
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
Collector streW shail be candidates for pedestrian walkways if there is space avail.t>le
outside the existing pavement and within the City street right-<>f·way. Walkways shall
not be constructed on any street unless they are requo,,'1ed by the adjacent residents. If
walkway; Me requested. they;ha!l be inslalied in conformance with the criteria listed in
Section C of these desi~n guidelines.
Wall<ways <hall not be plnced on local streets.
In general, collector streets near schools that serve as = to the school sh>ll be
considered a priority locatioo for pedestrian walkways.
Walkway material shal1 be concrete or asphalt. Concrete walkways shall be colored the
same as the adjacent rolled curt>.
Where waU.ways ar~ built, they shall be uniform on a given street.
The minimum wal1<way width shal1 be 4 feet.
The transition ~om existing standard City sidewaik to newly proposed wal,,;;ay sholl
follow these gwdelines:
• There shal1 be a one lot transition area of City Slanclard sidewalk along the
5lde frontage of properties fronung on El Camino Real.
6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ c,".
8.
•
•
Mlere City standard si~ewalk exists on &Iron Park streeu, i: will not be
extended (e.g. i( a half block has City ".ndard ,idew3ik, it will not be
c{)nLinued for Jle entire block) .
'Vbere gaps in any etistl!1g City standard s!dewalk exist, they will ~
filled in with additional City standard sidewaJk. The option of removing
an exi~ting section of City Sl<!ndard stdewalk win also 'be conslc'!red if it
extends for less !.han one block, and the removal has the unanimous
support of the :esidents of abllttif'o~ properties.
los Robles Avenue between La Dollna Street and Laguna Street has beer. identifiro as
• location that may accommodate Oil. decomposed granite path due to Hs separation from
the roadway. Approval from the Santa Clara Valley Water District would be required
for this improvement beca\l.se (he path would be located within Di.'iotJict right-of·way
aOOve their box culvert.
C. Criteria for Implementation of Design Guidelines
1. The City will nO( creaw a new program to construct drainage and walk\.\.'3Y improvements
lhrooghout Barron Park all lit once. Improvements w, II be incorporated into ongoing
City storm dntin, street resurfacit1g, and sidewalk projects.
1. Separate design guidelines shall be applied to collector and local streets,
3. Improvements will be designed to fit willlin existing right-of·way.
4. Rolled curb and pedestrian walJcways will only be considered on streets where a
minimum street width of 36 reet between curb lines can be maintainro (or vehicular
traffic and parking.
5. Staff"-M!l attempt to design drainage features and pedestrian walkways without removing
wds.::aping or private improvements such as fences, A walkway will be place<l on only
one side of the street. if necessary + to avoid removing private encroachments. If.
however, this is nO( pos!1Dle. existing improvemei1[s or landscaping within the public
right-of-way (ex'~t for = larger ~ 8" in diameter) will be removed in order III
accommodate tlte new construction.
6. Improvemer.ts will be constnlcted on a biock-by-block basis, rather than in a piecemeal
fashion. When drainage or walkway improvements are made " pan of a capital
improvement project. they will be ins.talled to the ~.ille limits o! worle as those of the
overall project, and will be nO less than one block In length.
6-3
,
7. Improvements will be designed SO as n..Jt to adver-.. dy affect drainage from private
properties.
8. The exact location and extent of actual improvements wiil be determined with
neighborhood lnput on a case-r.y-<ase basis. Whenever drainage or walkway
improvements are proposed for Streets in Bar:on Park as part of a capital improvement
project, staff will -::onduct a public meeting with the residents uving on streets abutting
the work.
9. Single lot resLdential developers \\ill not be required to constrUct drainage features. or
pedestrian wall.'WaYs. In addition, developers will not be required to make nor pay any
fee for such tmprovemer.ts as part of multi-tot residentill or commercial projects in a.rea5
without existing dIAiuage features or walkways. However, if such a. oe",elopment is
proposed for an area adjacent to existing improvemer.ts or includes the construction of
a new street, the developer will be .required to construct a drainage featu re and/or
pedestrian walkway in a=,,",,,,,,, with the design guidelines,
I
I
I
I
f
Figures
I
I ,
I , ,
I
"., ... _-..... LIMITS OF STUDY AREA
BARRON PARK 'COLLECTOR STREETS'
BARRON PARK MAP
Figure 1
) 2'1=1--
I" Ie J. ><EYWI\Y TO ElE lOCA1ED .. ·/
WHERe-liEF! SIOe:W.ALK, SIDEWALK
CORNERS OR D"'IIVEWAY$ ABUT
C~Re
!lOllED CURB AND GunER
CLA.SS 8
CO"lCRETE
TYPICAL DOWELS AT JC,~HS
(IIEFmc.-.LLY CENTERED)
I-...-_--",-'
I r-2:-I .-j'---'~'~' --1
VALLEY GUTTER
Figure 2
----... CLASS 2
AGGREGATE' RASE
~S~'~O;"~'~7"" •• ~P"~O~------------------------------_____________________ ___ . arM HIll ---'
J
I
t
I
IOOiO.sF6,5FO
t~plX'ndL'\ A
Meeting No.1 Summar}
A-I
I
I
I
I
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
Barron Park Street Design Standards
Community Meeting
March 26, 1992
. __ ._---_._-----------AGENDA
Welcome and Introduction, foe Teresi, Palo Alte Public Works
Project Background, Mark fohnson, CH2M HILL
k Project Purpose
B. Meeting Goals and Groundrules
C Project Activities to Date
Street Design Issues, Charles Gardiner, CH2M HIll
A. S tree! Uses
B. Drainage
C Aesthetics
D. Maintenance
E. Cost of Improvements
E Right-of-Way Issues
Street Design Approach-5, Mark f::>hnson
A. Vertical curb, gutter, and sid~walk
B. Rolled curb with unpaved parking and walkway
C. Valley gutter with unpaved parking and walkway
D. Ditch and culvert with unpaved walkway
Applying Street Design Standards, Mark lohns{>n
k Consider current Sl,eets and drainage
B. Major streets
C Side streets
D. Dead ends and cul-de-sacs
Implement Design Guidelines, loe Teresi
A. Timing
B. Funding
C ResponSlbility
VII. Conclusion and Wrap-up, Mark lohnson
I
I
I
I
MEETING NOTES
SUBJECT: Barron Park Drair.age Design Gwiddmes
Communit)' 1-.'leetin~ No. i
MEETING DATE: March 26. 1992 wc. .. nos:
DATE ISS U':D:
PROJECT:
A TI'El'IDEES:
April I. 1992 ,,",OTES 8Y: A. Scheler
SF03?749.BP.2Q
Jee Teresi/City of Palo Alto, Public \-\lorks
Mat! Costigan/City of Palo Alto, Public Works.
Mike Jackson/City of Pato Alto, Maintenance
Mark JohnsonlCH2M Hill
Charles Gardiner/CH2M HILL
Andy Sch~leriCH2M HILL
Barron Park Residents (Approx. 50)
Community Meeting No.1 was held to present to residents of Barron Park several approaches tv
Drainage Design guidelines for their fieighb<:lrhood and to rt'1.:"eive input on the community's neejs
and preferences.
A copy o! the agenda (A!tachment A) was distributed to tht: allt:l1dees. Community comments
were noted on a blotter. The f~l1owing is. a ::oummary of the meeting discussion as Indicated by
agenda item numbers.
II. PROJECT BACKGROD1>
A. CH2M HILL's in'iolv€menl with the Palo :\110 Storm Drain Master Plan W<lS
briefly discussed.
III. STREET DESiGN ISSUES
A. Street Uses
I.
2.
3.
Automobiles: Safe s.peeds shoutd be iTlain~ined. School bus
speeds ~-e also a concern, especially on Matadero Avenue and Los Robles
Avenue. Stop signs would be beneficial at wme :ocatlo:1s.
Bicycles
Pedestrians'. There was .some debate as to whether pede~[rian walk.ways. are
dt:sirable. Some believe that not h,wing walkways malntain~ the rlJral feel of
MEETING NOTES
Page 2
Apnl I, 1992
" lk 'au's are i1ece~:.;1.r)' for safety.
Barron Park, while o~hers belitve tl~a:_wa: ..... !
es.tJeCially near ~hools a."'ld in h;gtHran.c areas.
4. Parkif!g (see aes,hf:':tlCS)
:0. Drainage
1. At some locations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
,
Low spots e~is~.
There is no path for drainage.
Dry s.umps do nOl funclion properly.
S'.:b-surface drains work well.
Gutters do nOI ha .... e an outlet (e.g. t Sulano Dr.).
Grol!ndswell is s.ignlflcanl and may contnDute to deterioration of the
roadway.
Some localions are in a Flood Zone.
2. Drainage from residen.ces should be accounted for in drainage designs.
3. The drainage guideline~. \.\.'ill not address drainage problems at specifiC
locations. Rather, thF. design ~uide1ines will provide standards for future
projects which will aJdress specil';"c problems.
C, Aesthetics
1. There was some dissention about whether on-street parking should be
allowed. There are currenr.!y some locations where it is not allo\lr,:eG, but ~s
tolerated. In general:
•
•
• •
On-street parking is obstructive to pedestrians and slreet cleaning.
Perpendicular parking is nor favored.
Better definition of parking areas is des.irab!e.
Safety ls .a primary concern.
2. Generally, residents felt thai concrele sidcv.'a!ks are not desirable because of:
•
•
•
•
•
Contribution La uniform, urban appearance
Color
Vertical curts
Straight lines
Appearance of being too fonnal
MEET[l'I;G NOTES
Page 3
April I, 1992
The ~i[y agreed not to impose .... ertkcal curb and side\.l.'alk wheil Barron Parl
was/~corpo["3ted in.tD the C~t)' of Palo Aitel. Several residen:s noted fha! traLI~. and populatlOn density have incre4sed s:nce that ['me. Betrer
definl~lon of walking areas rna)' be required at .rome icx:alion~, Allemative
matenats and meandering sidewalks are poJ;s:i:>le approaches.
3. Desirable chara{'teris[iI:~ inl'lude:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Large setbacks
Trees
Lack of uniformity (maintains .a rurai feel)
Ccntinuous walk.ir1g paths
Fle;~jbilily
Consistency
4. yndergrounding of utilities. is part of all o:-l-going program being
!mplemen!ed by [he City independently of the current project
D. l\fa intenance
I. Maintenance requirements should be considered.
2. City and propert)' owner's roles in maintenance .s.hould be defined.
E. Cost of impro\o'ementoi
1. Costs of altemati \Ie designs .should be considered.
F4 Right·or~wa) issues and unironnity or design guideline"
L Four alternative:; are possible for de.aJing with v;rying iighl-0f·way:
2.
• u.se narrowest a.vailable right--Qf-way.
• Leave out sidelAo'3.lks, bike lanes, or parking areas 10 m?":zt>. existir.g
right-of-way.
• Purchase right-of·"-"3.)'. (The City does not comidt-i this an option
because of the lime lilvoh:ed and the CO~l.S of acquiring right·of-14ay).
• \/ary widths oftrdffic, parlcing. and walkirlg lanes witll varyi:1g right·
of·way (suggest~d by a res;denl).
Different streets have differenl uses.inee.ds. The design guidelines should
provide flexibility in their application., especially in the, ru:ea ~tw~n the
drainage feature and the edge of nghl-of·wiI.Y. Vanatl'.:m/dlYel:"say of
streets/properties is a particular value tlf Barron Park.
:'>[EE1'1.'IG NOTES
Page 4
Apnl I, 1992
3. Uniformity would help soiv~ drainage problems,
4. Property lines are often poorly defined. The Oiy'S firs:: step sho~ld bt! to
define right-of-way and properly line).
IV. DESIGN APPRO,·KHES
A. Four possible dt;sign approache:; were presented. Cop:es of each approach were
distributed to the attendees (Attach men I B).
1. There was nO[ a consensus as to the most d~sirdble of the design approaches
pre~nted. It was noted that a vertical curb prm"ides the best drainage and
the greatest safety_ Drainage ditches have the greatest maintenance
requ lre men ts.
2. The rolled-curb and valley g~tter approaches tc be fav0re(i.
3. Weed growlJi and mud on \Jnpaved walkways is a con':ern. Decomposed
granite aIld other rnzterials should be cemidered for parking and walking
ar<.lS,
4. Boundaries between uses should b~ defined and enforceabl~.
5. Handicap access is important.
v. APPLYING STREFT DESIG:\' STANDARDS
A. Flexible applicatiDn by area is desirable.
VI. IMPLEMFJIo'T DESIGN GUIDELINES
A,
B.
:riming: The d~sign guidelir,e project does nor include a schedule fDr specific
Imp.rovement projects .. Improvements will be made graduallv possibly as p<!rt of
projects recommended In Storm Drain Master Pian. ~ ,
~unding: The residems of Barron Park are currentl) paying for drainage
Improvements through their storm drainage utilitv i:ee -fh C
t A jl. .e ity does not plan to crea e an ssessment District to pay for improve~ents.
MEETING NOTES
Page 5
April I. 1992
GENERAL NOTES
I) 7:00 p.m. was early for at least one reside)1/; '.4'e shou:d consider hJving tl1e r,ext ITjet=;lng Tater.
2) The survey s.hould ask residents to prioritize uses. such a.s parking J.nd p~{jestr.~r:s, as well
as other iSSolJes, such as safety and presen.,'a~iofl of trees.
3) The survey shouid be tabulated. by addrl!:Ss. This '''''ill fa:illtalc dClerOllinlng \'ar)'!flg needs
by area.
I
"ppendix B
Surve~' Results
A swmmary of the slJrvey results is ir.cluded in this sectlOr.. ;he sun,'ey \-\-a5 rr.ailed 10
1,670 Barron Park reside;1ts. A to!aJ of 545 re:,vons.es ",,'ere received (124 fwm reside-nts
of colleclor streets ~~'rat.idero Avenue, Los Rotlles. tS\ .. ~enue. Amaranta A,it-nue, Laguna
A .... enue, Maybell Avenue, and Coulombe Drive) and 42l from r~s.iden'" of other streets.
Reader:i s.hou!d ~ote that of the 545 ~Lif\'eys, 237 (~J perce!'}!! indicated ,.1 ';Ome p()int on
their survey that "no change" wa.'> [heir preference [·U of 124 (35 perccnl) on coij~tor
streets: and 193 of 421 (46 percerH) On other streets].
In reviewing the results, readers should note lhat the survey a~ked the respondent to leave
blank any items considered not important or not applicable. Therefore, the r.umber of noe)
recorded does not necessarily indica!e that respondents VOl~d against that Item; some
respondents may have left it blank for other reasons. It is thuefore not appropriate to
compare the number of yeses and noes to dc!ermine a community "vote" on that item.
The most appropriate interpretaticn of the results. is TO e)(amine t"e degree and strengt!1 of
positive response for each item. The degree of positive )ilpport is indicated by the number
of yeses indicated by respondenl5 (total number of rankings or check.'i-) for each item. The
strength of positive suppon is indicated by the average ranking; the lcwer t!1e a .... erage rank,
the more people rated tha: item as important (1 =r.1ost important).
B-i
-
'L'··· "1)'''' : [:,1 OJ .alo 11lto
April 22. 1992
.'
j-Dear Barron Park. Res i dent:
The city of Palo "'Ito Publ' "'o'k '. t t' . . . n Ie n L S u~par me~ 1S ~n tne process of ~e':e~~t)1~g ~ set of stLeetl.dra:::.nage gl:l::iel1nes fer tr,e Bar~on Par%
e~~ ~r 00 as. part of .lts storm Drainage Master Platl. The gu~aellnes are lnte~ded to Establish the structural and aesthetic sta~dards for future street and drainage i~pcQvernents In 8arrc~
Palx. The enclosed survey is yOl.lr opp?rtu"uty to provide input to
the develop~ent of these guidelines.
I'm sure that most of you would agree that Barron Park has a
distinct look and feel. Ove.:-the years, there has (-E'en vocal
opposition against standard cl~rb. gutter, a~d sidewalk, b~~ ~o
clear alternative design has been agreed upon. The City Council
has asked Public Harks st.aff to '",ork :..ritr. the Sarron Par}r. cOi:i:,::unit.....
to develop a set of street and drainage guideli:les for the
neighborhood. The deve l"p~ent of these guidel ines wi 11 not change
the look of Barron Park overnight. Ratr,E'r they " ... i11 be
implemented over time as other City projects (drainage
improvements, repaving, ut i1 i ty · ... orJr .• etc.) ar-e co;:structed in the
area~
Because we want to be sure that the design guidelines are
consiste~t with neighborhood values and concerns, we are actively
seeking public input through a series of community :;:-.eetings and a
'Wr:i~ten questionnaire survey. We received preli:ninary inp-:Jt fron
Barron Park residents at the first commur.ity meetir.g on Harch 25.
The enclosed survey is intendeo to provide everyone in Barron Park
an opportunity to help develop the guidelines. We will be holding
another community meeting on !-:ay 21 at 7:00 at the Hoaver Scr.oel
(aOO Barron Avenue) to disc~ss the results of the survey a~d to
refine tt.~. cesign guidelines. TI'-.e gui'~elines · ... ·ill be revie .. ·€d
further by t::.:. Finance Committee of the Ci~y Council and eventually
~ill be approved by the full Cour.cil.
Please take a few mcrnents no..... to fill out the enclosed
questionnaire and retur~ it 2n the postage-paid envelope by y~y 12.
Your-input can help to ensure that future street and drainage
impr'ovements in Barron Park ..... 1.11 lTo3intain the unique feel of the
neighborhood~
It you have any questions~ please contact Matt CGS~lgan in the
Public works Departr.lent at 329-2469. Thank y~u for your
cooperation and interest in the future of Barron ParK.
Sincerely,
a.e..~h~
foe ;eresi
Senior Enqineer
t
Barron Park Questiollnaire ~ W1
The City of PaIo AltO Public Works Depa.'1lTIenl is jeveloplng new drainage and stree1 design stan..1arcts for the:
Barron Part. area. We are interested ir. hearing your views about drainage: and street design featul'!S. PLEASE
COMPLETE TIns BRIEF S\J1WEY AND RETURN IT IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE BY MAY
12TH. Thank YOu for your tim~.
L What is the name of your street? ____________ _
What is the nearest cross street?
a. 'What are HIp. most significant r~"l.l.Jt8 to. be achieved by a set of street and drainage
design guidelines. PI~ rank: the-rollowing is.sues accordmg Io)'(lUI view of (OCtr Imp:xunce as [csul(£ to be
lChieved. (I ;;:: Hjgh~Sl priorilY. leave blank any yoo feel 00 not need to be addressed}
Your-Street
_ Dc.<;;ignaLior. of parking areas
_ Improved drainage
__ Creation of walking 3(C:a
Cn::atJon of bicycling area
Improved safely
_ Con-;iSLCnl ncighbc:lrl100d 3ppc.ar2.oce
_ Defin:tion ofCily maintcnal",ce limiL<;:
_ Tid,jer neighborhood appe:v<i!lCc
_____ Olhcr (spcctfy) ___ _
BatTOn Park as a whole
~ ___ Design.aLion of parking ar<;."lS
_ fmpro .... ed 4rainage
_ ~.tiOf1 of lIo'alking aJ-e..a
Crc.3tion of blCydUlg ar<!3
_ Impro .... ed s.aIctj'
_ CQli.SiSUllt [Y.'il?;hbvrho:.»d al'p.:arar:ee
_ Definition of City mainleJ'1 ..... nce limits
_ Tidier neighborhood appearance
_ Other ,"sped ... ') ____ _
3. What are important usc,;; of Barron Park streE'h:;'? P1<--as.;:: f4[",1;. l~e foll.Jwing strlX!-LciCOTICnLS In lW11.'.
of their rdauve imponance 10 yo ll. {) '"' Hi.c;hest priorilY. leave blan\. an) ;-au f c:c:l !>hould r.ut be pro vld:'..d)
Your St::reet
Pedestrlan watkway
_ Driving lanes
_ P~ing arc.,'!
___ Drainage cOlltrDl
Bi.:yclc tarlC!p.Hh
_ Olher (Sf"," Jfy} ____ _
"Busy" Streets
_ Parl<1ng area
Drainage cor;uol
_ B~ .. 'dC" i.a[lc./path
_ Other ('p'xiryl _ ...................... .
"Quiet" StT't"et.;
Partl r,~ Mea
DraHl.:igc carillO!
Bh:ydc line/p;3U1
List streets in Barron Park that you consider "busy". ------
•
.
4. "lhat are acceptable drains.ge evntrol approaches in Barron Park? Pk~ r;ank 'your
prererer~ foc drainage coruml approaches, (I =-MOSI yrde.,-ed, k,-;a\'e bt...nl any ye'\.! feel shouJd ,10t iX' used)
~z::~ ~ ___ VenicaJ curb I :=1>/ Exan:ple. M,ayhell Avenue .along Ju.ana Brion(!'"s Park b.:t '.>.<::,,"-"
Ckmc) A ... ~nue arvj Coulombe Drive
_~ Rolled curb ~ E:l(ampk:" Driscoll Cow-:: (oft ./I.'Ll~'bo::l1 P .... c,'u': n<!.lr Donald ["\<I"J,:)
_ Valley g".lllf'r
, 'J , 0~,1'; _ Duch and culvert . ," Exampk· Upper Page Mdi RO<id
_Othe< (_ify) ______ ~ ____ ~
5. \\"here are pedestrian walkways appropriate in Barron Park? (Chc-d 2]11..1(11 ~jlp!y)
On bus) S!rCetS
_ Near schools
_ To comptele e~isting w.a!k ways
_ Other areas (specify) ______ _
6_ What are apPTopriate m;;.wrials for walkways in Barron Park? Pk.as.o:: rank .. r
prcrcn;nces for ..... alk-.... .ay malcr".u (1 M . ) 11lj I s. '" OSI prcferr{'-d, kal.C" bl.lnl any you rc-d s.hould nOI be usl-Ji
~~ vr;avc!
___ Dccumpoxd grarul.::
____ Other (specify) ~ ___ _
I
t
7. What are important factors when crP3ting a dedgn guidl".Iine for pedestrian walk-ways? Pleasc rank the following f .
actors 111 k'mlS of th~lr relrJ.J .. e impOrtance to )'00 and j lSI your preference. If all, tmdereach facux.{l-=-Most !mp0rt3nt) _
Factor
Cok>r
Texture
_ MaintainabilllY
Cost
_ Unear (or nOI'l-IIf'le.lr) ippf' .. a .. ance
__ O<be.' (specify) ___ _
Preference
8. Where are standard vel1:ical curbs and sidewalks appropriate in Barron Park?
-To complete blocb lhat already have sections of YCl'ucaJ curt and SldC:W3!k
____ On sides of prOp!rt.ies along E[ ('..amino Real
Nowhere
__ Orhcr (spoxify) __________ _
t. Should the design guidelines include some provision for tl".e physical definition (e.g.
border of boulders, concrete or wooden strip) ()f (1) the edge of the City right.of~way,
ROd (2) the limit of City maintenance responsiiJility (if different from the City right.
o(-way line)1
Right-of-way liDe
Ye.s
No
Limits of City maintenance
Yes
fO.Are you willing to maintain and provide upkeep (or parking and/or walking a.eas
",;thin the City right-of·way in front of your home?
Yes
No
\
..
11.Right--o(·way widt11S in Barron Park 'Wary wi:tely, ~ven wi~hin an ind.iVi~~~c;~lOCk.
How should the design guidelines ha,''''l.dte tbu vanety of nght.-oC-wa.) \\0' .
(Cheek your preference)
The wid,-,,~ of~e imprt'~'ements on OU'I individual bkx:k snould be l!lliform al'ld ~hould fA! a".
wlde ~ the narrolAl'CS[ section of lila! bloc k.
,,--•. ~:,::-:,.-\~-~~---":,:<-,:,;;«"",,,,,..,,..,.,.: "':-,
Ilj~4·"'.l}' '1°","' ~:red IY--Sli;:l <'-.,.,""'---""'::<~~~~-
lbe width of street/drainage L"J1pro'J('mems sMuld take advantage of existing nght of-way ai1d vary .n
axorcian.:e wilh the available righ!--of-way.
12. Pleasp. tell us how :soon you believe improvements should be implemented in Barron
Park. (Circle the appropriale nllmbet)
ImmedIately 2 3 • 5 'VI-'hen Other proje.-::s an" constnJc\Cd
le,g., street rcpavirlg, dr.d..irLage imrn.J"C'm.enL$, C:lL}
13. Please provide any other comments .about drair..age and slre-et design guidelines in
Barron Park.
PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED RETURN ENVELOPE TO RETURN THE
SURVEY BY MAY 12TH. THANK YOL! FOR YOUR TIME.
r "'"..,0 P. rk Su rvey Results
·1·\\1uu: are the most significant re:sul:s to be achieved by a set ofstn:et and drajna~e desi'O:Il l: _... ...
,~ines?
'!be strength of po~iti ... e support is indicated by &verage ranking; the tOWer the ;evenae rank the more people rated thai item a. ... important (l=-most importa:l.I}
'Y_s.n.t
Parlriq
Dooiaago
Wallting
IIi<:ydll>g
SGuy
~
~
Tm.r
NoCbange
OdIc<
_Pan -.
~
Walling
BioydjDg
Safc<y
C sitter y
~
Todier
NoCbanse
Othu
Reiidalb of ColJ«<tor Sl;m,
Total
Yes No A ....
31 93 ) 2
.... 53 :11 T
'::-46 7. .2'
39 85 2.97
::--~J '171 iIi
40 .. 2.'~
30 9. 4,23
-~ ." 2,6
,2
17
44
17'
83 2.g
91 4.!l
40 M 1,3~
10
8
RtJ.i Ikllu of Orher SU·celJ
GtaI Number
c:s No A .. 1
"4 )01 J.N
231 191 I 110 3! I
gg lJl
!45 27tl 56
IS 261 1[i6
t-O! 320
"J
I" 272 2,98
V
'1
II' )07 3.76
23 IIW ~14 ;
144 277 ' .l8
III
170
163 258 3,1'
,01 310 4.29
,72 2.9 , '21
-'91 I
13 j
"1f
~1b1TOll Park Survey Result> ,:
): .. What are fhe most significant results!o be achieved by a set ofSlreet and drainage design
Juidetines?
". strength of positive support is indica.ted by average ranking; the lower tnt'"!
DYCDse I"a!\.k the more peopte-fated that it.'!m as imponant (l=most important)
-PoriOnB -Walkins
~
Saf<Iy
Coasistcncy
Todier
No~
Ot/ocr _Park
Pamns
Ilraiaage
Walkins
IIicydiog
Saf<Iy
C-..;y
~
Tidie<
NoCbange
Othe<
RctidHtJ (#' CGIltttor-Streett
To<al
Yo; No hi .
31 9~ 3.2
33 91 • "
408423
ID
8
Residtnu of OtlIer Streeu
ot.aJ Number
:'es No ~.v
114 3()7 ).24
-i3~ 191 1J.7 '
110 311 V-
"" :;3J .l83
145 27< V§.
15 ,267 2.86
101 320 402
14. 212 ~.98
47
41
U4 J<l7 ),7ti
13 184 2.14
1« 277 -2"'
13J 288 "~ 170 ,2!!l r~
163 25" 3.18
lO~ 316 n9
17 249 J !2
29,
33.
3~'What arc important us...~ of Barron Park streets?
Dri\1ng
P ... ,kjnS
Dr.un.ge
Bicycle
No Change
Other
3B-Bu". Strm
Walb.y
Dri10ing
P .... ting
DTainase
Bicycle
NoChRnge
Other
lC-Qu1et 51_
WaIOay
Driving
Parking Dre_
Bk;'CIe
NoCbange
O<ba
Toc.als:
Toul IA"g
Yes No RlInk
)0
>--ffi ' '--r207
26' ,.-102 '
25
9
~l
218
]83
J:T8
327"" 2.] ....... _ .... _-
)62 3,09
2% ---i"4
~--330 ,2,63
3D-Which streets do you consider busy'
ToW.
ITot!!
Yes
LO$ ROOjes )91
Matadcro 276
Ba_ 120
c.guna 183
AnwolIIa iH
La Donna 10)
Ma}tell &.5
Coulombe 21
None 5
O<het 36\
.... What are ac<:eptable diainagc contrel a.pploiiche~ fur Barron Park?
Vc:tkal Curt
Rotled Curb
Valiey C,lltcr
Div:b a. Culver!
No Change
C)_he'
151
TotAls
No
I',g
j Rank
)02 :ul
298 ,~O"
J% 2).
361 ,_~ __ ~_
S~Where are pedestrian walkways appropriate')
Totalr:
Toul
y"
All Streets
Busy Suects
Near Sc;;hools
OJmp. E~j&ing
No_ ..
121
~--16I '
~ Hl ,-.
Oth«
119
121
30
6-What are appropriate materials for walkways in Barron Park?
Totals
Total A\'g_
Yes No Rank
C"""",,
Aspbalt
7~What are imp<1rtant factors when creating a design guideline for walkways?
Tota"
TotaJ A\-g.
Yes No Rank
Color I -'..l2
Te~~..ure v-210
Mainlain.abili!y ~
Cost '::::-B} ,
(Non)lmear l59
r None )1
CAber ~I
To compfele
[I Car.lil1O Side
Nowher.::
Other
9-Should tbe design guiJclines include detiilifion ofbourdaires?
FUght-<>f-Way
F.dgc of Mainre
No Respof.sc
Other
T<tt.L!~
Total
yo; NC1
10<;. 211$ 21("~ '------
129
"
IO-Areyou willing to main!ain and provide Llpkeep for parking and waIking area.';
T(J!al!i
I Total
Yes No
-___ 2.:TI ' 181
No Response J 7
Cl<her J4
1 I-How should dC'Sign guidelines handle variations in right-of-way,)
fot .. ls-
Fit NarTO\1.CS1
Adjust to F i:
No Change
Other
T"",'
Yo.
12-How SOOn should improvements be implemented?
Residents ranked timing of imp lemen ring improvements by I:;immediately. and 5""when other
projects are completed
ToUI3
Number
([=ImlTledialery) RarJu:d
"95
lOOIO.sFIt. 5Kl
Appe"dix C
Meeting No.2 Summary
C-1
· .
City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
Barron Park Street Design Standards
Community Meet;ng
May 21, 1992
Agenda
l. \VeJ'Com~ and rntrodl!ctjo~ Joe: Teresi, Pa10 Aha Public Works
A. Project Backgrouild
B. Meeting Goals
C. Project Activities to Date
II. Priority Issues, Charles Gardiner, CH2M HILL
A First Public Meeting
B. Survey Results
C. Community-\oII'ide Issues
D. Busy Streets
E. Qui~t: Streets
Ill. Priority Uses, Mark Jannwn, CH2M HILL
A Driving
B. Walking
C Bicycling
D. Drainage
E. Parking
IV. Design Features
A Landscaping
B. Driving La ne:;
C Walking areas
D. Bicycling
E. Drainag~
F Parking
V. Narrative Guidelin<.'!s
VI. Preliminary Cross-sections
A Busy Streets
B. Quiet Streets
VII. Conclusion and \Vrap-up
,
-'
MEETING MINl'TES
MEETING ATTE.'·DEF .... ~: Joe Teresi, Cit .... of' Palo Alto
Man Costigan:City of Palo AllO
Marl Jonnsc., CH2M HtLL
Charie; Card:r'er. CH2M HILL
Leslie R'gos, CH2M HILL
Ba~ron Park Re;.ident.s (list attAched)
lIflNUTFS BY: Leslie Regas
DATE, June II, 1992
SUBJECT: 8arron Park Comf:1unity Meeting, May 21,1992
PROJECT: SF032749.BP.30
Introduction
The meeting began with an introduction given by Joe Teresi. Joe explained thai the rea.5(ln
(or holding a community meeting was [hat the CIty Council had direc~cd ~he Public Works
Department to determine the community's needs a!1d preferences for guidelines for fUlure
street improvements. Councii requested the study because Barron Park residenl.s. have
objected 10 City staff's recommendation for indus-ion of Clty standard ,'ertical curo, gutter,
and sidewalk in recem development plans.
There are a wide variety of street designs in Ihe ne:ghborhood at present. The intem of the
guidelines is to ensure that new development and paving, drainage, or utility projects in
Barron Park produce street cross sections consistent with local prefcrC'11ce.s.
The last communily meeting was held on March 26th. Following ~hat meeting. a sllrve")
was mailed to approxirmHely Hi70 community members. As of Ma) 18th. 505 had been
returned.
Community Issues
Charles Gardiner reviewed the results of the first communlty meeling and the sun·ey.
From the first community meetir.g two is:i.ue.s appeared to be most important to Barron
Park residents: (1) Maintaining the rurdl feel, without adding uniformity tD tne area and (2)
Safety of pedestrians and cyclisrs., particularly on the bu.sy streets, was vOiced as a (:onCe'm.
Th:: tabulation of Ihe surv~y was divided by ~collector S~[eelS" (the busiest streets) and
"other streets.· The result.s indicale that reSidents on;: tne C?i1cclor streets. ",::ere. mOSI
concerned with safety, and residents of the olher streets d!lt draJnage was a ~mon!y ls,sue.
some co mments regarding the analysis of the SUI"\"~'y data and ~:of11munity Follo~·jng are ~
issues.
•
•
It i~ r.ol .a scienl:~lc analysis anj as such, the resu:ts ::':101.1ld 0nJ~ ,be
considered as general trends 0:' prefertnces as OPI-cI~d to pro\.'H.:!lng
ddini,j\'e resuiLs \.I,'ith documented s.taIJs,lical signiticance.
T~e sun,;ey did roO{ clearly pro .... idc a d'lOit;:e for no change.
When Barron Park o,;,.'as. annrxed to Pal') Alto there werl! tirm commitment:>
rhat no sidewalks or vertical curbs; · .... ,t)uld be bUIlr.
e The need for drainage improvements was idcncitied by rt':side:-Its i~ many
areas of Barran Park.
• ~,rany other residents fell thai drainage was. fi,,~ and puddjes arrer rainstorms
are a benefit to the community.
Question:
Who came to Council to recommend street improvement guidelir.cs:
Answer:
Some locaJ residents have comphined about sidewalk designs for recent
development pmposals in Barron Park. The Council I.hell directed Public Works to
work with the community 10 develop .)Orne aJtemati" .... e design guidelines.
Qucstion:
How can we make 1.11 improvements at one time to ca'..iSC! as littre incOl1ver"lience and
disruption as possible to the neighborhood?
Answer:
The int,=,nt of the guidelirles is to ccordinale any improvements with other projects
10 avoid digging up streets. several times.
Qu.estion:
What types of drainage options are there?
Answer:
Vertical curb, rolled curb, valley gllUer. a'1d ailch and cu1vert are [he four chG:ces
of drainage con:.roi. that were pre~11ted at the tir.s.~ community meet!ng.
Question:
Can we have drainage (n the center of the streets?
Answer:
It is not safe [0 dri ..... e when dra[nage is running down the middle of the roadway,
Ultimately, driving safely is a. priorit)· on the streets.
Question:
Why were drJ...irlage 4I1d sidewalk is.sue~ combined on Ihe survey and at these meetings?
Answer:
~ralnage and ',I/aJkway issues. are closely related in mOSl cases becaLlse ~he drainag~
eature at the edge of the street must provide a tranSition to the "" . .a!kway area.
2
",
Question:
Are specific drainage problems Identifica in Barron Par!..:?
Answer:
The. City !l2.S recet .... ed comp:aillts about se ... eral drainage prtllJlems and the Srorm
Drall'!: Master Plan WIll identify In greater detait the m-:'Ijor drainaee lmpro"'ernents
needed :n the Barron Park area. -
Questio .. :
Who pays for Ihe street and drainage improvemems':'
Answer:
No new CD~ts '.~:ili be incurre-j by the homeowner. Futuie improvements v.'ould be
paid for by the de .... eloper. or thiOUgh existing City j"'e\'~nue if (he,.' are part of City
paving, drainage, or utility improvement projects," .
Question:
Will there be improvements to address the ~oodlng?
Ans.wer:
There are two steps netess;uy to address; tl(.oomg. Collection of surface water to
several JX)ints and the remo .... al of the runoff through subsurface pipelines. r tle
street design guidelines will panic!Jlarly address the surface ..... 'ater collection. The
Master Plan is addressing major pipeline needs.
Question:
Is there a map shQ\.ving drainage improvemerHs propo<;ed in th~ r ... faster Plan~
Answer:
The Master Plan is still being developed so map) are net yet available.
Charles Gardiner further summariled the res.ult! oft;"e first community meeting and ·,.Jr,'ey
as follows:
•
•
•
On a community-wide ie\."eT, maintaining th.e ex.:sting T"'Jral/rlJs.tk feel to the
area, minimizi~g change, and reduc1ng maintenance by both Cay ar.d
residents were the highest priority.
For busy streets, safety, drainage, ',.I,:alking a~s. ~nd tidier appearance wen~
identified as high priohty issues, They are llsieo 1n order of preference.
For quIet streets, drainage. safety, tidier appearance, and wallrji1g areas were
priority issues.
Questio;]: _ '. b t is there an)' data comparing safety in Barron Park to !.afel)! in Safe[y Is.an lssue, U
other areas of Palo Alto?
Answer: . . 55 the safetv of b:cycles, pedestnans. and {,ars in part of
A sludy IS In progre on d I1g ar~a5 because 'Jf Ihe Cal!ram acc,den[ Barron Park and th;! surroun I
3
\
.. ~ con.:ems from the clJmmuniiy aboilt ',he need for g';ide1lnes., the projectl('am A~tel. = th t tn~ purpose of the guidelines is so the Clty (,an gl'ie gUICJance abol t ..... h~t a ~~~:~per 'rr,:y or may not do when constructing [n the Barron Park an~'a---They are belr.g
proposed [0 pmu::ct the commL!nity's irlerest.
Design Features and Issues
The team presented a list of fealures and iss:;es de ..... e:cped irorr. (OI':1mundy responses.
Drilling
Walking
Bi.cyciinC
Drainage
Parking
Question:
Maint.1in exi'i!ing trees and landscaping
Allow safe, efficient vehicle travel
Busy Streets-Creale separale ',I,a~king ,Hea to impro .... e safety
QU.it':1 SLreers-·\\lalking area can be shared with dnl,."ing and parking
areas
Busy Slfeets-Allov.,' for bicycling area
Quiet Stre::ts-Cyc!is.ts share read with vehicles
Bus)' Streets-Rolled curb preferred to provide ~paratjon between
autos a."d pedestrian s
Quiet Streets-Valley g":.Hter preferred
Low priority for change
How do the numbers from the s:ur.ey tabulalion support these findings?
Answer:
The sul"vt:)' results were nO! anaIyzed: the first wmmunity meet~ng and results of
the survey were used to get a genera! feeling of what ",-ere the mos.t important
issues to th: community. The presentation here is intended to move tow-ard
con.aens-n5. and develop guidelines that are acceptable to Barron Park residents.
Question:
Will we lose any pan of OUT yard and trees if 2. separate bike and pedestrian
walkway are built alvng the roadway?
Answer:
We want to minimize the changes on the street right~of-ways and the City does not
intend W purchase additional right-of-way. Maintaining the present land;cape is a
prioriry to the City.
4
Commenl'
Consider ofie·way trafti..:: in selected ut;'as.
Question~
I!1 reference to a ques.tion on i.he surVey regardin p the guide:1QeS for pliysicz.l
appearance of lhe v.'alkways. wllat is no.,.iincar? co
Answer:
A me<indering walkway thal would follow the e~is;ing ctlne!!. end contours of the
righL~f·way .
Queslion:
If a stret![ is not wide enough for a sidewalk on ei.ther side, can a sidewal'r.: be
placed on one sid~ of the roadway and not the othe.?
Answer:
Yes. thar is possible.
Question:
A1 a design that was not offered as a choice on the survey. how about using a
covered ditch and culver! for drainage inlpro ..... ement?
Answer:
That approach wou.ld require constn~ction of a concrete-li:led channel covered with
a conllnuous grate, which would be very costly.
Pro-posed Narrati"e Guldelinbi
The project team L,en presented proposed narralive gu.idelines for street tmprovemef.ts.
• Mair,tain ex.isting landscaping
• Work within ex.isting righl-of·way
• Pavement width to remain at least i\s. wide ,::. exis!ing pavement
• lmprove.rr.ent.s. s.hould not adversely affect drainage from privale
properties
• Improvements to be implemented as ~rt of .on-going pmJ.ects
• fmprovements not to be implemented In a ple-:.emcal fashlon, minimum one
block impro ... 'cments
•
•
Transition from El Camil10 Real with verticai curbs 10 a d·ls<.ance of one ~ot
deep
Fill in existing gaps of '.,'enicaJ curb and sidewalk~ do net extend vertkal
curb "-Tld sidewalk
5
CJmment:
It is i11eg<l1 lo park on the sidewalks.
Question: .
Is. there a timeline for these street ar'ld drolinage ifnprovemenls lO occur?
Answer:
No. As change and development occur~, the: gutdelines. will be for the dl:':sing of
those projects.
Question:
On the transition from E1 Camino inlo Barron Park, YCI.i 'iOund pro-sidewalk.
A.nswer:
Safety is an issue at that particular spot. A curb one 1m deep provid~s a safe
transition area.
Question:
Why must sidewalks or curbs be extended (off of El Cil'llno):
Answer:
Again for safety reasons mere should be a place for pedestrians. to stand and wait.lo
eroS£. roadwaY$. A. cu.rb helps guide cars luming the (orner and pro~ects the
pedestrian walkw.).
Comment:
Children cros.~ing the st.reet ha'o'e no p1.ace to s.tand and .... i.lt for ..::ro:ioSing or bU:)t:s.
The residents generally accepted lIle proposed one lot transition area from curb to Barror:
Park des.ign, The lot that fronts E! Camino Real is rypitalJy used as commercial pmperty_
Q\Jestion:
Will the streets around the Matadero Cn-ek project be repaved when me project is
comp!ete'?
Answer:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District will be respons:ble fc,r the rep2iiing of an.~'
disturbed roadways or walk ..... ays
Comment:
There are only 6 proble;n areas for drc!inage in Barron Park and these are part of
the Matadero Creek mai n tenaJl ce,
Comment:
Place a few strategic drains only where drainage is a problem and till iii the Io~:
spots lhat collect run-off.
Comment:
You need. to ~oo'k: at the aesthetics of the neighborhood, like parking and issues
other than draUlage. Why nO( put the mon..!)' into improving on other areas?
6
Question:
Can YOll mail the results bdCk to LI-S?
Answer:
",!e ~il1 mail the results tC' thDse of you here whose addres.ses '''''e have from the ~Ign~m srleet, and '.ve wiJl also pro'.'ide the res.u!ts in t~.:-r.omeov.,'ner's group for lise:
tn the news!etler.
Question:
Can you have a stormdrain without cwrbs and 51de'A'alks: Answer:
Yes, however ihe system is not as effeclive wtthcUI surr.f' means to coliect af1d
direct the fin· ... ', such as gLitters or curbs.
Ques~[on:
If you put a curb in, it will net blend with !h.: driveway becaLise of the height
changes,
Answer:
Some treatmem or grading behind the curb .... ,'ill be provided.
Comment:
I feel &Oat r could have said ~No change" throughout the .sur."ey and I did noL
Question;
What 1s this mention about the Finance Committee re\'iewing the guideljnes?
Answer:
The Finance Cummittee of Lie Cily Council wi!1 review and he3.r comment on our
suggested guidelines and then make a recommendalion to the full CounciL The
City COllncii will make the final deci:;.ion on the adoption of the design guic!e!ines.
Q\Jestion,
Will we be notifloo of the Council Mec!i:1g:
Answer:
We are on r;,e Fi.,ance Commiltee agen:da for July !4th, othet"\o\.,"l.se roo addicioi1a!
mailing from the City is pJar.ned.
Question: . ..
]s the treatment at the edge of t!1e pa~'ement consIdered a gUIdeline')
Answer:
Yes.
Comment: , .
There is a map from a previous master plan [ho3l shows the dralnage problems. IT'. Ihe
area, you need to reference that map.
7
Propoo-sed Guidelines faf' Quiet Stret.'ts
The proiect tea:n presented prehmmar)' guidelines,. in r qUle( :\orr;;;¢ts Key features include
concret~ val!ey gutters., ,Jnpa\':'c v.alkiog lnd parking. areas and no bll:yde lanes.
Question:
Whai. material will be used fo; the "alley g'cllter'l
Answer:
Concrete.
Question:
Will water T.!main sl3nding above the gutter?
Answer.
The gutter will be on a cor.s.tart s]ox so the l,I,.'ater will drain to collection points.
Question:
How would you connect the drainage system wlth the guller"!
Answer:
The Storm Drain Master Pian is exalllining drainage sy!.tem n.:ctis. and collection
points througl1out Pall) Alto. Conntciions tJ'pka\ly ...... olltd be via a. catch basin
connected 10 a below-ground pipe.
Comment:
You. have no proof that you will be red.uc;ng ll-te luw points by adding these
improvements_
Question:
Why change the material to concrf:le and not keep the asphalt?
Answer:
Concrete provides a more durable s!.lrface and edge. Ttoe CO!lcrete can be colored
an earth tcne so it wou.ld blend better wilh the lands.caping.
After some discussion, the res.idents were in general agreeme:1t wHh th~ propo:)ed
guideline$ for qu~et streets. There were sj)edfic requests ~hat cor.structiO!1 materials be
selected that will blend with lo.:ai s.l.J.rrounding:i (concrete should n.e colore(j a:1.d textur..::d,
nO! white).
Proposed Guidelines ror Busy Streets
The project team presented prellrnlnary guidellnes for bus.y stree.ts. Key featLlres Lnclude
rolled curbs, hard surface walking areas, and bicycle lanes where sufticient :right-of-way
exists.
Question:
Where is there sufficient right-of-way to use this combinarion of features'!
Answer:
The oomblnation of features I,l,'ould adjust to match the ex.istir,g. r\ght-of~way,
8
Que:;tior::
We have been trying to eSlablis.h b'k I
space, \Ve hav be-. .',' e 3.nes On Los Kobles but ~r.t're is ~ot enough
there mu'( __ de T 'n~I~ 'Oll~ that \,1,.;: ca:'lnot ha're bike la:les ~Jl L'iliy one dJrt.:liun:
J ~ ua, .. ,i!l.e a"es.
Answer:
Bike ian-es would be Proposed in pairs,
Queition:
A
ft seems like the roiled curb would result in a rdJsed walkv..,'av, nswer: .
The stft''..:! would be grad~d 10 avoid a raised \,I, a!k ..... d) from the edge of tlie property.
Question:
In places where r have seen these rolled curbs and walkways, cars park straddling
the curb.
Answer:
Some education and enforcement would be needed to retrain p<>....ople how 10 use a:ld
treat these curbs anti waikways, Without a vertical curb, there will be some
parking lJutsic:!e the rolled curb,
Question:
Where would the division of the rolled curb and valley gutler be defi!1oo from b:.:sy
streets to quiet streets?
Answer:
There 'W'ou[d be a transition distance where the curb wo\..!ld graotJall) slope from a
valley guUt'r to a roJ!ed (;wrb or .... lce versa.
Concerns with the proposed design on the busy streets were that parking would OCcur on
tile walkway (i.e. cars parked straddling the rolled curb), the amount of right-of-way
available on e<lch street, and the definition of bu'iiy versus quiet streets.
There was some discussion about the defmition of ·collee-,or \or busy)" slr~ds and "qlliet"
streets and the proposed locatlolls where !.he gUidelines would be applied. Fol1oowing are
some comments that residents had regarding this topic.
• Should the designation be mad: 3..;cording to the traffk count only~ You
ca!1't use just cars to define t~ow "bus.y· a :o:.treet is.
• Laguna is not juS! a ~bltsy 5treet~. It is nice for pedestrians. and bicyclisLs
Puddles do collect or the streel.
• There is no bike area on Laguna.
• I ~e a problem ',Io'"ith a rolled curb on narrow .<;treels.
.. ~ .. alk.ing area.
9
You would need' a
•
.,.-:
•
• We should do a fo\!ow up ~,'itt: Ir.e 'r3'tlc expe;ts. who are performing a
s.tud)i Ot vehicl.'. pedestrian, and bicycle traffic for a p(1r~ion of Barron Park
on t~eir findings to assis.t in the designation of stft·<:t type
Comment:
I question tl-]~ calegorizalion of "busy~ streets and "q\.ue[" streets. The "Quiet"
streets may have bL.:::'Y areas. and the "uusy" stret:i.s ma} nave qUlo-:t areas.
Question:
Can we keep a valley gutter l:~rougho'J! the ertti~e neighborhood",)
Answer:
That approach is an option, tJowever i:I vaile), gutter does no! pro\:ide the ~para!ion
belween vehicles and pedestrians that wouid be provided by using a rolled ct:rb.
Other Flnal Comments
.. A rai~d walk",,'ay with a rolled curb may cause the need to e1e ... 'ate the
driveway to match up. I think a val!e} gulter ",,'ould be best.
• We need uniform treatment. Valley gutter would be the best.
• Parents who have childr-en com,ng from outside Barron Puk i!1to the area
for schools wan! safe crosswalks for their children.
• Busy stree.ts do not need walkways on entire streel, they need it only v.here
they are bus)'.
• You need to count the traffic to dEtermine "busy".
• Vertical clirb would narrow the streets,
• You C.n~ as.kins for our input. we need to know hO\l\·' they wiJi be used, there
is a lot of interpretation, we want to see the app!ic3rion of guidelines.
•
•
There are mor~ worthwhile projects in Palo Alto. It is sill)'" to put III this
effort into curbs and sidewalk design v.'hen the librd,'ies are cunmg hours
and the senior citizen programs are being cut.
Puning in sidewalks does nO! ~lve all the problems.
The meeting was adjourned.
10
I 0010.5 F,t. SFO
Append", 0
l\leeting NO.3 Summary
DI
-
l' roo.
~ "
CITY Of' PALO ALTO
BARRON PARK ORAllIIAGE/STAEET DESIGlLGlJlOEUNES
Community Meeting
Septemb., 29. 1992 7:00 PM
I. Welcome and Introduction
(George Sagdon, Assistant D~rector of Public Works)
• Introduce City Staff
• Overview of Meeting Agenda
• Meeting Purpose and Goals
II. Background
III.
IV.
(Joe Tt!'res~. S{!(1iOf Er,gineer. Palo AllO Pubhc Works Oept.)
• Surnmary of First Two Community Meetings
Recommendations
(Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, Palo Alto Publit Works Dept-!
•
•
Criteria for Implementation of Oesign Guidelines
Drainage Features
•• S'Jrvey Resurts
--Alternatives
• Pedestrian Walkways
--Survey Results
--Alternatives
Summary and Closing .
(GeOlye Bagdon, As,sistant Oil'sctor of PubiK Works)
ATfENDEES:
MlNUTES BY,
SUBJECT:
~DUCT!QN
CITY OF PALO AI TO
George Bagdon
Joe Teresi
Matthew Costiga.11
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
MEETING MINUTES
Assistant Direclor of Public Works
Senior Engineer
Engifleer
Approximateiy 75 Barron P:ark residents
Matthew Cos:jgan
September 29, 1992 Community Meeting
Barron Park: Drainage and Street Design GiJideJines
Project No.4 7702
The. meetin~ began with ~ introduction of the Clt)' represencatvts by George Bagdon,
ASSI.stanl D~ rector of PUbh.c Wo:ks. George asked that everyone !',ign in so that tiley might
recelVe a copy of the meeting mlmHes a.l'ld be notified as to the date of the Finance
CommLtt~ meeting. To encourage good interaction, George encouraged people with
questions to ask them at any time during the meeting.
George uplained why City staff was conducting tf1,e~ community meetings: to develop
de.'iign g.Jidelines, as directed by the City Council, in respor.se 10 citizens' c(.)mp!aints about
ponding (nooding) and pedestrian safety. He identified drainage and wallc",.ys as It,e '''·0
maj",r tss~s to be discussed.
George acknowledged that there are residents within Barron Park who do not want to see ii1'1}'
cIlanges made to their neighborhood. He stressed that the City does not intend to impose
nandard 'Y'crtical curb, gutter and sidewalk on Barron Park residents. Ciry staff is working
with the tommunicy to develop an altemative set of design guidelines for use in Barron Park
thai will enhance, rather than detract from, the rural feeling of the neighbcrhood. George
responded to a question as to why the Public Works Department has recommended the
installation of curb, guner, and sidewalk on some Barron Park developments by stating that
there is currently only one set of City standards. After the Barron P::>.rk guidelines a..~
adopted by Council, they will be incorJX)raced into new developments.
Someone asked a question concerning the fundin~ of street and dninage improvements.
George t.&ptained that residents would not .~ subject to a:'J)' new ta.~es or assessments, but
that CUrrt11t City revenue {e.g. gas taX, utl.llty users tax, stor ....... dram fees) would be used to
fund the improvements.
" iJ
i . , Barron Park Drainage & Street Design G uidelinrs
Meeling D.I<: September 29,1992
P.ge 2
Joe Teresi, a Sen:or Engineer with Pubtic Works Engineering gave a summ~JI of the t"·o
previcus community meeting.s. Joe acknowledged that Barron Park has a unlql1e look and
feel. and that residents were not interested.in the typical -.sterile-looking-curb and gutter.
Residenls waM to maintain the character of Barron Park.
Based on input received at the two previous community meetings, en March 26!b and May
21st, along with the 545 responses to the wrilten questionnaire. Ul~ major issue to be.
addressed is how to imprm:e storm drain3.ge and pedestrian safety 1n Bi'..rron Park whtle
maintaining the rural feel of the neighborhood.
CRTTERIt\ fOR lMPLEi\IE~'Ti\TION OF DESIGN GtiIJ:)ELr-r..s
George Bagdon descnOed that drci.inage and walkway irnprove1'y'.:ent~ would be incorporated
into future City con.struction projects such as street resurfacing, stor:!] dr?inage
improvements, and sidewalk (onstruct..ion. Based on the input received from the
questionMire, the majority of residents did not consider the improvements to be ilI". :.irgent
need and preferred that the improvements be constructed as a pan of (Jngoifl.g projects rather
Lian the creation of a new separale project.
George then described the criteria that City staff w-ould use when implementing the design
guidelines: I) the improvemenl$ would nol be done all at once and would be incorporated
ir.to future street projects, 2) the improvements would be designed to fit within the existing
right-of-wilY, minimizing the impacts on mature la'1dscaping and parking patt~ms, 3)
improvements wculd be completed on a block-by-block b~is as a minimu.m, and 4) the
location and e.x.ter.t of actual improvements would be determined with neighborhood input.
George staled L'lat if the residents on a pa.n.icu1ar street agreed that they did not want
improvements made on thelr s!reet, then that option would also be considered.
Joe explained that the type of drainage feature and walkwa)' would differ depending on the
tyye of.street. Based on the questionnaire. seven streets were identified as "busy". These
streets .. eluded: 1) Los Robles Avenue, 2) Matadero Aveoue, 3) Barron Avenue, 4) Laguna
i\venue, ~) Amaranta Avenue, 6) La Donna Street, and 7) Maybell Avenue, MAAY of chese
same st~ are identified by the City as collector streets (as opposed to local streets).
Barron Park Drainage & Slreet Design Guidelines
Meeting Date: Seplember 29. :992
P.g~ 3
~!MENDA TIQNS
DrainvUi
~~~.~~~-~~~~m.b~~_~_~
from the quesuonn3lre was that !"W"O types of drainage features would be acceptable: roned
curb an~ vall~y gutter. A ~dboard Cl.itOut of each type of drainage feature was presented to
the audIence 10 order !c clanfy how each wouid took. Joe explained that gu:ters work to
complement an underground s:orm drain system by directing SlOrmwater to a drain inlet.
They would also serve to clearly mark. the hm~ts of City maintenance responsib~bty and
protect the edge of the road. Without adequate drainage features, water ponds along the
edge of U'I~ roadway and accelerates. the deterioration of the asphalt pavement.
Joe proposed that rolled curbs be used on the busier streets to eSlabJish a more distinct
separation between autos ~d pedestrians. The rolled curb wot:ld be three feet in widlh, with
.a relatively gentle slope so tl:at autos will not "bottom OUI" when ent~ring a driveway. A.
concern was raised about the ter\denc)' for a\ltQS to park up e .... e.r the top of the curb, forcing
pedestrians out into the street. This problem would ha .... e to be addressed by Police
Department enforceme..'1t of parkjng r~ulations. 1he other acceptable drainage feature,
Vii..!!.ey gutter, would be used on local streets. The valley guller would be three feet in '-.I:idth,
with a 2-elevation difference between the flow line atld the edge of me gUlter.
Both the rolled curb and the valley gu.tter would be conslrtJcted with conerele. Joe preseilted
some ooncrete samples that showed. the varying shades of gray to bJack that could be
achieved by blending an additive to the concrete mix, Most of the audience preferroo a m:x
containing approximately 4 pints of additive per cubic ),atd of COflcrete .. This pr.:w:h.lcts a.
dark gray color that blends well with the asphalt pavement, but remains vi!iible enough 10
highlight the edge of;ne roadway.
Discussion then turned to the use of standard \lert.lcal curb and gutter under special
circumstances. It was suggested by the City tha! vertical C~Jrb5. be installed where i! .... 'ould
till in a gap on a block U'iat has e:osting sections of .. 'erticaI. cut!'-~esi~ents req~ested that
the: option of removing the existing vertical curb and repl~lng .Il wlth elther a v~l1~y gutter
or rolled cIJrn also be available. George indicated that thIS opnon could be consldered on a
case by ca.:ie basis subject to a review of the amount of existing vertical curb and the
preference of affe:ted residents. The use of vertic~ curb and g~tter was also proposed for
the side frontages of properties which face El Cammo Real. ThIs concept was generall),
accepted by Ihe audience,
Barron ParI: Drainage 8< Street Design Guidelines
Meeting D"e: September 29. 1992
Page 4
P£destr.:in Wal.kwaysi
The second major topic discussed w::s pedestria."'l walkways. Joe presented the rest..1ts from
the aUe:ilionnaire: s.ho~ring that Lie l":1ajority of res,pendents felt waJ~'ays "":ere appropriate on
blJsy~ streets and near schools. The reSUlts from a related sur..'ey question showed that asphalt
and concr~le were fa' oreel: as appropriat~ materials for walk\.tfays. Maintaina.bility and cost
were also identified as important factors in choosing a construction ma~eriaL Joe stressed
that mainTainability is also a very important issue from the City's point ofvieYr'.
joe slated iJ1at the walkway::., if conSt:n.ietro with concrete, would be tinted to match the
adjacent rolled curb. It was agreed that the final selection between concrete and asphalt as a
walkway material eouid be made at '.he time a walk1 ..... ay is proposed foT' ~ specific street,
based. u-pon input from the affected residents.
Joe proposed that stal'1dard concrele sidewalks be used in Barron Park under the same
circumstances establtshe<! for the use of !?tandard ve..rtical curb and gutter (the uar.s.ltion from
El Camino properties and to fill in e:x.isting gaps). The use of decompcse.d granite for a
pedestrian walkway. dtle to the 'high costs of mailHenance, would be limiled to Jesser traveled
areas. Los Robles A venue from La DoIlna Street to Laguna A venue (o .... er the SarrOtl Creek
box culvert) was identified as a possible area when: a cecompo.sed granite walkway could be
appropriate.
SUMMARY
George reiterated. that Ll-Je Barron Park design guideliIles, if approved bv the Finance
C?m~lltee and the Cit), Council) v..'QuId be implemented over time as .; part of other ongoing
City ImproVement programs. Goorge closed the. meeting by thanking the audience for tl1eir
input and by stating the people who attended. this meeting, as well as the previous two,
would be SCtlt a copy of the mee~ng mi:lutes and ~otification of the date and time of the
Finance ComAlittee mt'!C:ting .
.. ~ .
Appendix E
Summary Or City Council and Finance Committee Meetings
Staff submitted ~\leral reports to t.1C City COlO:ncil and th~ Fir;aflc',e Committee (and its
ptedeceUor, the Finance and Putlic Work:i Committee) during Ole devei.oT)ment of the Barron
Park Drainage and Street Design Guidelines. The follo\\-ing is a summary 'of those reports atld
lhc wn~nding Council and Committee meetings.
J. October 30, 1990 Finance and Public Works Committee meeting
(CMR:510:0)
Th. staff report transmitted the Barron Park AssocIation', proposed 'Street Standards'
and recom mended that the Committee d irtct staff to prepare a capital improvement
project to de\l'elop either an overall street improvement plan for Barron Park or
improvement plans for an indhidual street in Barron Park.
The Finance and Public Works Comminee directed staff to retllrn to the Committee with
t.l-te cost for hiring a consultant to develop street design guidelines for new projects in
Barron Pari"
2, December 11, 1990 Findnce and Public Works C~mmittee meeting
(CMR:600:0)
The staff report presented cost information for h.iring a wnsuitant to develop st:reet
design guidelines for Barron Park.
Tne Finance and Public Works COll'mil1ee recommended to Council Loat. Barron Park
consultant study be included in tl,. FY 1991·92 budget. The Barron Park Drainage and
Street Improvement Guidelines project "as c<>n""'luen~y funded In the 1991-92 Cap,.tal
Improvemelll Program budget.
3. Septem~ 3, 1991 City Council meeting
(CMR:407:91)
Staff recommended that the City Council award a consultant "8reemem to CH2M Hill
California, Inc, to ~etop Barron Park Drainage and Street DesIgn Guurelines.
The agreement was approved by Council.
E-I
•
4. October 27, 1992 Finance Comnlittee mceting
(CMR:473:91)
The staff report transmitted 2. draft version of the Barron Par:': Drainage and Street
Design GuitJeiines tc the Finance Comminee for review. Members ~f the Barrorl Park:
neighborhood ;poke before the Comrr.itlee and raised several. queSbOOs and concerns
about u-.e guidelines, The issues fell into four general categones:
• Right-.of-wa}", parking. and landscaping issues
• !mplementation of Design Gill delines
• Private development j ssuc.s
• QWr'!ership and maint.ena.nce concerns
The Committee asked staft' to .return to a future meetir.g with answers iO the questions
and coocems raised by the public, and to modify the Design Guidelines, as flecessart,
in response 10 those conc.erTIs.
S. December 15, 1992 Finance Committe.: meeting
(CMR:S42:92)
Staff returned to the Finance Committee with an'w." to the concerns raised by ~
public at the October 27, 1992 Committee meeting. A revised set of 8aJTon Park
Drainage and Street Design Guidelines were submitted for ComTTl~ttre review. Members
of the public still had some concerns about t.~e conruuction of pedestrian wal'ow. ys i"
Banoo Park and about how the Design Guidelines would be u!«l in the future.
The Committee asked staff to expiidtly stale the intent of L.~ Design Guidelines
document by adding. preamble «pressing the City" commitment to mAintaining the
rural character of BartO!l Park. Staff was also directed to clarify that pedestrian
walkways would only be CO",tructed on specified col1""tor streets and only when
rtq'Jested by resideots.
E-2