Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0473.092~tober 22, 1992 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNcIL ?alo Alto, California Attention: Finance Committee BArron Park Drainage and street Design Guidelines. erp 47704 Members of the Council: Eeport in Brief This report transmits a set of design guidelines for future street and drainage improvements in the Barron Park neighborhood and reco~ends that Council approve the guidelines. Sa cJsaround Barron Park residents have traditionally valued the rural character of their neiqhborhood and have opposed the use of city standard vertical curb, gutter, and sideWalk on streets in Barron Park. On Auqust 1, 1990, the Barron Park Association (BPA) submitted a set of ·Street Standards for Barron Park" to Council as a recommended alternative to the design standardD used elsewhere in the City. On August 13, 1.990, Council referred the BPA standards to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation. The Finance committee met on october 30, 1990 to discuss the SPA standards and directed staff to return to the Committee with the costs for hiring a consultant tc, develop design guidelines for use in Barron Par~ (CHR~510:0). staff returned to the Committee en December 11, 1990 ~ith a scope of work and cost estimate of $25 1 000 for a consulta.nt study (CHR:600:0). The committee approved staff's recommendation to Council that a consultant study be included in the 1991-92 Capital Improvement Program budget. The Barron Park Drainage/Street Improvement Guidelines project was approved by council as a capital improvement project in the 1991-92 budget. On september 2, 1991, Council approved an agreement 'With CH2M Hill California, Inc., to develop drainage and street design guidelines for Barron Park in conjunction with the preparation of a new storm Drainage Master Plan (CMR:407:91). Disoussion of Community Input In order to receive input from the community regarding street and drainage quidelines for Barron ParK 1 staff and the consultant hosted a series of three community meetings and distributed a survey questionnaire. The meetings were held at a local elementary -1- CMR:473:92 .' . school. Meeting notices we~e mailed directly to all Barron Park residents (see ear~on Park map, J..ttaC',hment A) in order to encourage active neighborhood participation. The questionnaire "Was also mailed to all residents and included !!l postage-paid return envelope to facilitate response. A s~~ary of each of ~he meetings and th~ questionnaire results ate included in the consultant's !'eport (Attachment B). The first co~unity meeting was held on March 26, 1992 at Hoove~ Elementary School. The purpose of this meeting was to give an overvi'!!w of the guidelines study and to identify the residents r major concerns and preferences re: ated to street and drainage design.. The conSUltant presente.d. several qene:r-al approaches to street design and drainage control and solicited feedback from the meeting attendees. Using the input gathered at the first community meeting, staff and it6 consultant developed a written questionnaire ~hich was mailed to all Barron Park residents on April 22, 1992. T~xough the mail­ in questionnaire, staff was able to qather input ~rom those people 'WhQ were not able to attend one of the meetings~ Although the questionnaire can not be depi~ted as a statistically valid representation of community interests, it gave valuable feedback from throughout the ne.iq~rhood 'Which was used to develop the desiqn guidelines. Approximately one-third of the questionnaires (545 out of 1670) were cOlll.pleted and returned to the City. staff and the consultant used the public input from. the first cOllUDunity meeting and the returned questionnaires to develop a preliminary set of drainage .and street design guidelines, which were presented at a second community me~ting held on May 21, 1992 at Hoover Elementary school~ Although the residents continued to express many varied points of view l there was movement towards general acceptance of the proposed guidelines. In an effort to achieve greater community consensus on the deSign guidelines, staff continued to refine the guidelines and then hoste~ a third community meeting on September '9, 1992 at Hoover Elementary School~ At this meeting, staff narrowed the focus of the guidelines to three key issues: drainage features, pedestrian walkways, and criteria for implementation of the design guidelines. Kore specific inforEation, such as details for proposed drainage features and options for construction mater ials, were presented for public review. Additional flexibility was incorporated into the quidelines, so that they could be applied to the man:r varied scenarios of existing street conditions in the Barron Park neighborhood. piscussion of Design Guidelines Based on the input received from the community and direction from staff, CH2M Hill has prepared a report containing a proposed set of -2- CHR:473:92 1 I j ~ ~ < <~ ..... ......... --e __ ;.~:i~:'(_C ____ ~~",-",-- Barron Park dr~lnage and $treet desiqn guidelines (Attachment B). The design guidelines address three maj:)r topics: 1. criteria for implementation 2. Drainage features 3. Pedestrian walkways CRITERIA FOR IMPLEMENTATlON OF DESIGN GU"DELINES The consultant report includes sever&l narrative criteria for implementation of the d~sign quidelines. These c~iteria re£lect the neighborhood's desires fo~ how the guidelines should be implem.ented in Barron Park. Since the guidelines are not rigid standards to be iaplemented uniformly througho~t Barron Park, these narrative cr-iteria will provid.e vall.:.able guidance to statf when desi9ning or approving improv6ments for a specific street. • .0 new prograa. will .b-e created to construct atr •• t and. drainaq. iJlprov ... nta throughout Barrol! Park all at oElee. Since there does not appear to be any 6ense of urqency in tho community to make improvements in Barron Park~ no new capital improvement project is needed. In addition, residents expressed. oppos.ition to any new fees, taxes., or asseSSlflents to construct improvements. • IlIProveaaata vill be incorporated. iato onqoinq Ci t7 stora drain, .t.re.t r •• urracing', aD!! .14..,a111: project.. In order to ensure compatibility with area-wide plans for Barron Park: infrastructure improvement, street and drainage improvements should De designed and scheduled in conjunction with ongoing capital improvement programs. The installation of drainage features, in particular, should be coordinated with the construction of underground storm drain pipelines. COns.truction impacts to the neighborhood will also be mini~ized by incorporating street and drainage improvements into onqoing City programs. • xaproveaents will :be d.esigned to .tit within existing right-ot­ way and to .i~i.il. the iapact. on exi.tinq 1.n~se.piDq and parkinq patterns. l'avu\8:ut width shall remain at le.&st. as vide •• exiating pav .. ant, vbere po •• ible. Residents expressed a desire to mAintain the current appearance and usage of streets, including landscaping and par-king patterns. SDme items that encroach into the City right-of-way may need to be removed to accommodate future street and drainage improvelllents, but staff wi 11 attempt to design the improvetllents so that the disturbance to existing conditions is minimized. Although the narrowness and variability of right­ of-way W'idths in Barron Park may limit the ability to construct improvements, there will be no acquisition of new right-of-way. -:)- CHR:473:92 -.,--.... ' ... '108 -_ ..... -----' • • Iaprov •• .nt. w111 be eonatruct.4 on & block by block b&.i.~ street and drainage improvements ~ill not b~ functional if they are built in a piecemeal fashion~ An isolated section of walkway or gutter serves little or no purpose and creatEs an undesirable hodqepodge appearance, Any new improvements need to extend a minimum of one block or Ce contiguous to existing imprvvements~ • n. exact loeatioll &114 exte~t of aotU.l ill.prov_ent.a v111 btl 4eterained vitb neiqhborhood input OD • caae by cas. b..ia. The design guidelines presented in the consultant's report are tY.lt intended to be rigid standards to be implement-e.d uniformly throuqhout Barron Park. Due to the variability of existing physical conditions and neighborhood opinion, the final design of street and drainage improvements should not be performed without neighborhood input, Using the deaign guidelines as a framework, project designe-r-s should meet 'With the affected residents to develop a detailed design that is acceptable to the neighborhood. • Separate qui4aliD.. apply t.o collector street. and ~oca.l .tr •• t.. Residents pointed out that the need for improvements varies significantly between local streets ::!-~ the busier collector streets~ consequently, separate design guidelines were developed for each street classification~ For the purposes of the design quidelines l the following streets are designated as collector streets (see Attachment A): Matadero Avenue rEl Camino Real to Laguna Ave.) Barron Avenue (El Camino Real to Laguna Ave.) Los Robles Avenue {El ca~ino Real to Laguna Ave.) Maybell Avenue (El Camino Real to Donald Dr~) La Donna Street (Barron Ave~ to Los Robles Ave.) Amaranta Avenue (Los Robles Ave~ to Maybell Ave~) Laguna Avenue (Matadero Ave. to Los Robles Ave~) DRAINAGE FEAT~~ES Improved drainage was 'Widely regarded as an important goal to he achieved through street improvements. In addition to carrying stormwater, drainage featul'es serve to hiqhlight the edge of the roadway, identify the limits of City maintenance responsibilities, and help stabilize the edqe of the asphalt pavement~ separate quicielines were developed for collector and local streets as described below. Local .tr •• t.: A 3'-wide concrete valley gutter was selected for use on local streets. A valley gutter is maintainable and functional, and yet less formal than a vertical curb and gutter. The valley gutter will be installed at the edge of existing pavement and will de-fine the limits of city maintenance. The area outside the gutter will be left in its existing condition and will be the maintenance responsibility of the adjacent property cwner~ -4- CKR:473:92 ---.... _ .. _._------,. ........... - Collec:tor at..r •• t.: A 3'-wide concrete rClIl~d curb vas selecte.d for use on collector streEts in conjunc~ion with pedestrian ~alkvays. A rolled curb is reco~ended over a valley gutter because it forms more of a barri6r between the street and the adjacent pedestrian walkway. The draina9~ features will be built ~ith concrete because of its proven d.urabili ty and because it can be ct;)nstruc:ted to precise slopes. These chl!lracteristics are particularly important in Barron Park due to its relatively flat terrain. In accordance with the preference ex~ressed by residents at tne comnunity meetings, the concrete ~ill be tinted a medium gray color to blend in better with the adjacent asphalt street. Although Barron Park residents generally object to the use of the City's standard vertical curb and qutter} there are a few instances where most people agreed that it is appropriate. The design guidelines state that vertical curb and qutter should be used on Barron Park streets a~onq ~~e side front~ges of properties that front on El Camino Real. This approach gives E1 Ca~ino properties a uniform appearance and provides a transition zone from tfie busy E! Camino commercial strip to residential Barron Park. The guidelines also provide that vertical curb and gutter may be appropriate as a drainage solution to fill in gaps on streets with existinq sections of vertical c-I.lrb and gutter. In this instance, the guidelines also allow for the possibility of removing the existing vertical curb and gutter, su:bject to a review of the amount of existing gutter and the desires of affected residents. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS Barron Park residents viewed pedestrian walkweys as desirable in certain locations for ~easons of safety rather than convenience. Most residents seem to be willing to walk in the ;treet or along the shoulder as long as there is not a significant amount of i!lutomtlbile traffic. The design guidelines, therefore, do not. racommend pedestrian walkways on local streets. Walkways ....... ere cOiiosidered appropriate, however I on. collector streets and near GChools. The design quidelines recommend that all collector streets be considered as candidates for pedestrian walkways, particularly ~~ose adjacent to local schools. In practice} other factors may effectively limit the a~ount of walkways that can be constructed in Barron Park~ Right-of-way width~ existing landscaping and ~rivate improvements, parking patt~rns, and the location of utility poles are all elements that would need to be analyzed on a block by block basis, in order to determine the feasibility of pedestrian ~alkways on a particular street. The design guidelines identify concrete and asphalt as acceptable materials for pedestrian walkways, priJ!larily due to their all­ weather surface and their pro-.... an durability. Although 'Walk:ways are -5- CMR:473:92 ----... ---..... ' ... ----"'-' ..... ~---. intended for use by pedestrians, thei' are also subject to auto traffic at driveways and parking ;oreas and m1.,;.5t be designed to withstand the wear and tear of such use. Other materials, such as decomposed qr~nite or gravel, are not recommended due to inhe~ent maintenance problems. The selection of either. concrete or asphalt for a specific walkway wOI-lld be made. with neiqhborhood input on a case by case basis. Concrete walkways would be tinted to match the adjacel':t rolled curb. Standard City sidewalk may be installed in Barron Park on the sides of El CaminCl properties and to fill 9xistinq gaps as stated in the quidelines for standard vert-ical cur~ and gutter described above. Los Robles Avenue between La Donna street and Laguna Avenue has be~n identified as a street that may accommodate an alternative pedestrian walkway design. Alonq this section of street, Barron creek runs in a box culvert adjacent to the roadway. The corridor above the box culvert :may be suitable for a pedestrian 'Walk-way. Since a walkway al,:,onq this route could be separated from auto traffic wit..l} wooden bollards or logs, it may be feasible to construct a deccmposed qranit-e path. Prior to pursuing this alternative, et.aff would seek the approval of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, who has jurisdiction over the box culvert, and then staff would perform an analysis of th~ impacts on street parking. BecQm.mendatioD staff recommends that Council 3pprove the attached -Barron Park Drainaqa ana street Design Guidelines.- Respectfully submitted~ ~/' ,1~ •. /, i -i I/t-//./ tu-~L ----jc: PAT STONE DAVID G. ADAMS Acting Assistant Director of Public Works Director of Public Works '~LAL~~· -.,&; ~;LEMING Interim City Manaqer Att~chments: A -Barron Park Map B -Barron Park Drainaqe/street Improveme~t Guidelines R~lo:l.ted CHRs: 5.10:0, 600:0, 407:91 cc: will Beckett. Barron Park Association Traffic Committee -6- CMR:473:92 ,,-. ... /' , IJMITS OF STUDY AREA BARRON PARK 'COLLECTOR STREETS' BARRON PARK MAP -""'<~'---........,--~ ' ....... _-_ ... , --- Attachment 8 BDlTOD Park Drainage and Street Design Guidelines City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Prepal'Pd by ClfMHILL Oclober 1992 . ~ -"-, .~: ~ , -" CONTEN1'S ExecuLive Summary '. Introduction ._ 2 Community Mee~ing No.1 3 Survey ' .. _ ... 4 Com munity Meeting No, 2 5 C~mmunity Meeting No.3 6 Design Guidelines FIGURES 1 Barron Park Map 2 RQlled Cum and Vall ey GUlter Appe!dix A. Meeting No, \ Summary Appendix B. Sur<ey Results Appendix C. Meeting No.2 Summary AppenOlX D. Meeting No, 3 Summary l00J05DP.SFO Page E-l 1-1 1-1 3-J 4-1 5-1 6-1 .~-' n , ' \1 'I u , Executh'e Summary Study Baekgrom,d and Purpose In :esponse to Barron P~rk residents' obje.=tior.s to the use of City standard vertical curb. gutter, and sidewalk in their neighborhood, the City Council directed the Pu'Jlic \'lurks Department to work. with the community to dev~iop a set of alternative street des.igll guidelines. The design guidelines will provide guidance to private developers and the City !'"t!garding acceptable designs. for drainage, \,I.:alkw"Y5, and other street features. The ,g!Jidelines will be u!eC in the design of new developments or City projects such as repaving. drainage im­ provements. and sidewalk improvements In B<:.rron Park. The guidelines are intended to define and protect me interests of Barron Park reside"ts as local improvements .a.-:d de .... elopment oc('urs. The PUDlic Works Department cor;tracted wiih CH:::M HILL to ~::,ist in de ... 'cloping the design guidelines. O,'erview of ApproachlActh'ilies To develop drainage and street design guidelil'les that represent community interests and concerns, three community meetings \I,,'ere conducted and a ;nail-in que:;rionnaire survey was developed and mailed to Barron Park residents. Based on community input from the meetings and the survey, recClmmended design guideline.') were developed for Barron Park, Summary of Issues Several is-suts and concern.') were idemifitd in the tirs,t meciing There \4'3$ strong sen­ timent among many at !.he meetilig th,H no changes s.hOl~ld be made in Barron Park in order Lo preserve the existing neighborhood character. Safely and drainage '.vcre a concern for the residents interested in some change. There ..... ',15 _,>trong opposition 10 vertical curbs and sidewalks in Barron Park. Rolled curbs 01' vaticy gutters appeared tel be favored. Aesthetically. while concrete was not con5idered acceptable as a constr:.JcliQn m31erial-ne'-4' gutters and/or \\a1kways should blend with local conditions, If walkways art! to be coll~i.dered. residt!nts ""'ere inlerested :n r.:.eandering walkway:. thdt pre~ne existing landscaping. The survey results also indicated that many residents favored no change to Barron Park streets. Among those favoring some changes, drainage. ~fety, and tidier appearance were the key issues, Survey respondents prefer:ed that any improvements be incorporaled into lOOlO.5DF.SFO EI .. .';., i I l 1 . '-- .-.;" .-... ..:: ongoing City storm drain, street resurfacing and sidewalk projects, ~,'ersus any ne''!' program ~hich would implement improvements ::ill at once. In the second meetirlg. priorit), issues identific.d in the survey were presented. Some residents questioned the need for the study and design gU'ldf':line!., and some residents were concerned about continued opponunilje~ for input d<.lring review and approval of project:'ii designed in accordance with the guideliries. Other conc~rn-" cerltered around an interest in more detailed information about the drainage, traffic, and safety situation; the application of design guidelines to collector streets 1'/ersu::, local streets, and the how the str~ts were being cL1ssified; and aesthetics.. In the third community meeling. key issu~s aJId general conditions. from the tirst two meetings were reviewerl. and priority issues to be included in the guideljnes were identi­ fied. The siJl: crileria for the implementation of the guidelines eSlablished at the me-eting have been incorporated into the recommc:nded design guidelines. [I w ... s agreed thai Ihe design of an actual project would be r~viewed by affected residents prior to fmalizing of the design. Recommendation Based on the discussion with Barron Park residents and the input re(;ei ..... ed through surv:y responses, the pro5ect team has developed proposed drainage and streel de-jign guidelines for future improvements in Barron Parle The guidelines include narraljve descriptions that provide overall guidance, intenl, and priorities when performing final project deslgn. The guidelines also include sample drainage feature detail drawings The guidelines can be divided into three basic sections: {l) drainage fec:tures. (3) pe­ des:rian waIkways, and (3) criteria for tmplementation. If drainagf!. improvements are to be made in "iU', area of Barron Park, rolled curbs wO'Jld generally be used on collectors, and valley guners ge"",era:Jy be used or. IOQI streets. All areas would have the OpliD:l to not implement any changes 10 e;<.isti!1g conditions. The transition from existing drainage features to newly proposed drainage features is. outlined !n lhe guidelin.es. Pedeslriall walkwd),s will ollly be :ollsidered for collector streets and then only if the right-of-way and other physical conditions pe,mit. The six criteria for guideline implementation provide a flexible program for the timing .and location of improvements. Thet are designed 10 minimize impacts to resident:i and allow the community to playa key role in making decisions regarding future impro\:-ements. 100 I OSDF.$FO E-2 ~~'-' ... , Section 1 Introduction Background and Purpose During recent reviews of new developments. in Barron Park, residents Gf the OJ.rea have expressed concerns to the City Council about the use of City standard vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalk in their neighborhood. Responding to these concerns, thE Ccu~ciJ directed L"'e Public Works Departmtnt to work: with the community to develop a set of alternative drainage and street design guidelines for use in Barron Park. The design guldelines will provide guidance to developers and the City regarding acceptable designs for drainage, walkways, and other slrect features. The guidelmes v.ill be used in the design of new developm~nts 0, CilY projects such <5.5 repaving. drainage improvements, and sidewalk improvements in Barron Park. The guidelines are intended 10 define and protect the interests of Barron Park re:iidents as local improvements. and development occurs. Th~ Public Work.o;. Department contracted with CH2M HILL to assist in devdoping the d~ign guidelin<!s. Study Approach To develop drainage street design guidelines thai represent community interest~ and concerns, several key activities were conducted to involve Barron Park residents. An initial community meeting ""'as scheduled to identify i-s.sues, concerns, and interestr; related to street design. A mail-in questionnaire survey ',,"'as developed,:u,<:! mailed to Barron Park :residents. Working with City staff, CH2M H[LL then developed preliminary street design concepts based on concerns and issues raised at the first communi!:}" mecring and in tJ1.t survey responses. A second community meeting was conducle.d !Co present preliminary survey resuits and to discuss the preliminary de:,ien concepts and priorities, A third community meeting was conducted by City staff to Identify the specific issues to be included in the guidelines. This. report summariz.es these activities and provides recommended drainag~ and street design guidelinr::s for Barron Park. lOOlmEl.SFO I-I ---""'.": .. ,.,,. .. ·,, ..... ··' .. ·"0_ ... * ........ ...-.---- -. ",. Section 2 Community Meeting No. I Format and Attendance ... ?-~}~ '",: The initial community meeting was held al the Hoover Schoo! on Barron .A..vcnue in Barrol'l Park on Thursd2y, March 26,1992, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Joe Teresi. Palo Alto PUb~lc Works Senior Engineer, provided an overview of the prcject and the purpose of the meeting. Mark Johnson and Charh:!'i Gardiner from CH2M HfLL led discus-~io:1 of community issues reiated to street design. The meeting was attended by 52 ioca! residents. The meeting summary is included in Appcndi){ A. Presentation and Discussion The project team presented and discussed the key issues and dements of street design guide1ines. For each issue, discussion focused on developing a complete understanding of Weal preferences Cbid concerns. The issues and elements discussed included these topics: • Street Uses-Automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, and parking • Drainage-Local drainage and c~nr.cction to t.h::: Citywide storm drainage sys.tem • Aesthetics-Existing neighborhood characler, landscaping. and surface materials • Maintenance-Needs, costs, and owner/City responsibilities. • Cost-Construction costs and source of fllnds • Right-of-way-Oetining boundaries and ho\.l, to 'JSt:! availcbic right-of-way The team then descn1>ed and discussed four alternative approaches for designing drainage improvements at the edge of the strf'et. The four alte::rnatives were presented to describe the range of possible approaches for discussion purposes only. The four alternatives includOO t.~ese approaches: • • • • lOOlmEA SFO Vertical curb and glitter Rolled curb Valley guner Ditch and culvert 2·1 • .. ~ The team concluded by ex.pJaining rna: these guidelines would be applied as future projects are implemented jrl Barron Park. These projects co:.Jld inc:ude repaving, drainage improvements, sidewalk impro\lemcms, new deve10pments, or o:her local improvements. Key hsues Severa! issues and concerns were identified during the course (.If the meeting. These issues are bfi.o!f!y presented here. No Change There ~dS 5uong ~ntime:1t among several residents at the meeting Ih.at no changes should be made in Barron Park. Man), expressed that they moved to Barron Park because it is unique in Palo Alto. They believe that the rural character and feel of the neighborhood are alir~ve ar.d should nOl be change.j. They requested thaI the City not impose the same standards in Barron Park thai are applIed in other pan) of Pato ."!to. Preserve the Existing Neighborhood Character In discussing the concern about no change in Barron Park in more cct<iil, many residents. reemphasized the character of the neigt,bornood as atl important feature. There is a rural feel to Barron Park that resident~ want to preserve. Important aspects of the rural feel are the trees and landscaping. the desirab:liIy of walking through the neighborhood (m311Y take .wening st..roIls), and non-uniform street edge treatments. Some residents noted that puddles after rain'Storms also contribute to [he rural feel. Safety Many residents noted that safet) i ... an importartl consideration for some Sircets in !krron Park. Traffic exCC"'...ding the speed limit on the busier streets. the narrowness of some streets, and safety in the vicinity of the loca.l schools ,",cre specitical1y mentioned a~ concerns. Improve<! enforcemen! of tramc raws and better separation of bicycling and walking from driving areas on bl!sic;-streels were suggested. Others noted that safety was pol d concern, and tl1e ability LO walk in the street was a des.irable fe.alUre. Drainage Many residents noted that local drainage is a problem in Barron Park. Discussion focused on tile need to collect water on the surface and to proyide a means 10 car:-)' the water aWJY from areas where large puddles form. Others did not fee: Ihal drainage """0.:> a problem on their particular street. l00IViE4.SfO 2-2 '-.,.----- • · :'., Edge Treatm~nt There was strong opposition to vertical curbs and sidl;:'W31k.s in Barron Pcirk. Then! Wai a perception by some residenls that this. projc,ct was intended to im?J~ ~idewallcs on Barren Parle against t1'leir wishes. Several longtime residents noted that (here was a c,ommitment from Palo Alto during annexalion procedures that the City 'A'ou1d never impose sidewalks on the neighborhood. ResidentS do not want Barron Park to look like the rest of ralo Alto. Rolled curbs or valley gutters. appeared to be favored. Construction Materials In discussZ!1g potential ,onstruction matenais for drainage fealures ana' \I,,'alkways, resident5 at the meeting indicated thaI materials should blend with local ('onditiorJS. Vlhite concrete is fJot an a<:ceptable material. Other Aesthetic!; Residents suggested that, 10 the extent possible. street designs be nonlinear. Panicujar discwsion focu.sed on the feasibilil y of pwviding meandering walkways that pTeser .... e existing Ia~ds.caping and are cons.istent wilh .... arying widths; of right-of·way. IOOI~EUfO 2-3 "' Section 3 SUrVe)' Format and Distribution Following the initial community meeting, CH2M HILL, working with the Pubiic Works Department, developed a mall-in questionnaire ~urvey to be dislributed to BarrDn Park residents. The survey was cr~lIoo In ensure thaI all Barron Park residents had :l11 opportunity to provide input, t;.;pre'Ss concerns, and offer suggestions for street design guidelines. The format of Ole survey was designed as an informal means to identify priority concerns related to street design and preferences among possible solutions. The survey was not designed as a scien!ifLcally accurate or stalistlcally vaJid representation of community interests, On April 22, the four-page sllr'"lo'ey and a cover letter from Joe Tere)i were mailed to 1,670 Barron Park households within the area delinealed on the attached map (Figure I), A business reply return envelope was also included to further encourage responses. Responses By June 1st, 545 s'Urveys bad been completed and returned, Of Ihese 545 responses. 124 \lrtr-efe received from residents on the collector streets iL.. defined by the City's Comprehensive Plan (Matadero Avenue, Los Rcbles AI,.'enue. Amaranta Avenue, Laguna Avenue, Maybell Avenue, and Coulombe Dri'le). The remaining 421 responses were from residents of the ot.l]er streets in Barron Park. The results provided some additional direc!ion fer developiflg the design guidelines, Coupled with discussions at the initial community meeting, the sur..'ey helped clarify street design issues. The project team then developed preliminary c!esign guidelines that combined engineering and cost factors. wilh the commlJr.!ty input rece!\'ed through ti':e meeting and survey. The preJim 1.n.ary design gui,delmes were the topic of discussion at the second community meeting. Results and Condusions The g~!!e!'al resulls and conclus.ions from the survey responses are sUIT.marized belo-.... '. The tabulations of survey respon">es :are includee in Apper;dix B. IOO10Sr7SFO 3-1 , PH • No Change Nu.merous responde:'1t'3 indicated on their sUlye)'s :hat t~ey did nO[ \I\.'an' any change to Barron Park st~ls. Of the 545 responses. 237 (43 percem) [44 of 124 (35 percent) on collector streets and 191 of 421 (.:l6 percept) on other streets1 ind;caled at some point on theil survey that "no change" was their preference. Important I~sues Drc!lnage was cited as the most important result to to;,;: achieved through design guideline.1i. for Barron Park streets (29:5 ye:;e)). Safety and tidi'::i" appearance also received Hrong positive support (223 and 212 yeses, !"especlively). Residents on "busy" streets indicated that safel), and w~lking follo\!"'ed by drainage were the most significant results to be achieved by the guidelines, while residents of "quiel" streers identified drainage as the most significant issue. Street Uses For "busy" strcelS. driving, walking, and bic)cJing were noled as the mosl important uses (321, 322, and 3(J2 y~~s, respectively). For "quiet" S'ree!.~ walking and drainage were listed as important BSE:S (261 and 249). Bus)' Streets The seven busiest streets listed by residenls included Los Robles Avenue (391), Matadero Avenue (276}, Barron Avenue (220), Laguna Avenue (83), Amaranta Avenue (139). La Donn. Street (103), and Maybell Avenue (85). Drainage Control Rolled CL:rb and valley gutter were noted as preierred drainage control approaches (243 and 247 yeses, respectively). Pedestrian Walkways When asked where pedestrian walkways were preferred, respondents ir1CJi..:ated two areas of highest priority; on bL:sy streets and near ScrlOC)jS .. Walkway Materials No clear preference was indicated by respondents for walkway materials. Listed in order of positive s.upport, the materials were as,phalt (21 7), concret~ {2J4J. decomposed granite (206), and gravel (18]). IOOI05E'l.sFO 3--1 .~--'"----- • Design Factors Maintainability (307) and cost (265) were cited as the most important faclurs to con~idel' when developirlg des.ign gUidelines. Vertical Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalk Vlben asked where vertical curbs, gutters, and side",,-alk are appropriate. re:idenls noted that they are appropriate on the sides of lots fronting on EI Camino Real (224 yeses) O( nowhere (201 yeses). Mai ntenance There was strong willingness among residents to provide upkeep for {")ff--STreel parking and walking areas (303 yeses, 181 noes). Urgency Residents stated a preference for making improvements as other street or drainage improvements arc:: made rather than immediately [1031's (immediately) and 2265's (when other improvements are made)]. The average was 3.48. IOOlO$E7.SFO 3·) Section" Community Meeting No.2 Format and Attendance The second ccmmunity meeting was held on Thursday, May 21, 1~2, at the Hoover School on Barron .o\ven'Je in Barron. Park from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Joe Teresi provided a briefintrodu.ction and a review of the purpose of Lie study and the meeting. Mark Johnson and Charles Gardiner presented the results of the previous community meeting and the mail-in questionnaire sur.'ey and led diS(':lJssion about the preliminary street design guidelines. The meeting was attended by 73 residents. The meeting summary is included co Appendix C. Presen tation Charles Gardiner reviewed the key i .. ;sue.s and general conclusions from the fir:it community meeting. He went on to present the preliminarj results of the survey. BaSEd on Lie initial commuflity meeting And the survey results, the following priorit)' i!isues were identified and presented: • Communltywide Priorities Maintain Existing Rural/Rust!c Feel Minimize Change Low Maintenance • Priorities fOT Busy Str~ts Safety Drain3.ge Walking Ar~as Tidier Ap~rance • PrioriLJes for Quiet Streets Drainage Safety Tidier Appearance Walking Are.:..:i. Some residents questioned the statistical vali:::lity of the sUT\'ey results alld the advisability of drawing conclusions from the responses. The project team reiterated thai Ihe purpose of 4-1 .. .;;. ... -. the survey was [0 provide general infonnatioJ'. inp;.it, and guidance for developing des.ign guidelines" The sur~'ey was nol intended IO be a binding vote all alt~rn~itlve~. Mark Johnson then presented the following general goals. identified fm each slrec: design fearure: Landscaping ""atking Bicycling Drainage Parking Maintain e,...isting trees and landscaping Ailow safe. efficient vehicle lrave] Busy Streets-Create separn!e walking area 10 improve safety Quiet Streets-Walking area can be sl"1ared with driving and parking areas Busy Str«t.s.-Allow for bicycling: area Quiet Streets-Cyclists shart lOad with vehicles Busy Streels-Rolled curb preferred to provide separation bet""een au los and pedestriahs Quiet Streets-VaHey gutter preferred Low priority for change The team then presented proposed narrative guidetines to be included as par!: of the des.ign guidelines. The proposed narrative guidelines included these stalemenL!I: • • • • • • • JOOIO.sU,SFO Maintaln exis.ting landscaping \Vork wiLh1n e;;.isting rigr.!-of-wa} Pa .... ement width to remain at least as wide as existing pavement Improvements not 10 adversely affect drainage from private properties Improvements. to be implemerltcd as pan of ongoing pr(Jjccl~ Improvements nol to be implemented in a piecemeal fa~hion, minimum one­ block improvements Transition froul EI Camino Real with vertical cl.!rb and sidewan.: to a distance of one lot deep 4-2 • Fill in existing gaps (one or tWO lots) of verticai cwrb and s.idewalk', do not extend vert:cal curb and sidewalk The team then presented two p:-oposed cross sections, one for quiet streets and one for busy streets. General acceptance of the proposed cross sections appeared to develop, although concerns remainoc about the need for improvements and how the guidelines wdi be applied to speciflc sLrects. KeJ Issues During the community meeting, 3e .... eral issues of concern '",'ere idenlified and discu:r.;sed. The key issues included these topics: Study Purpose Some residents questioned the need for the siudy and the establishment of design guidelines. Some were concemed about continued oppo:umities for inpul during Tevje"'· and approval of specific projects designed in accord.tnce with the guidelines. Drainage Some residents questioned the magnitude of the drainage problem and noted that some simple steps may be sufficient to alleviate problems. Others noted that additional information about drainage problems is needed and solutions must be coordlnaled ~~th the Storm Drain Master Pian project. Traffic and Sarety Some resldents continued to note that there are traffic and safety concems in Barron Park. Others noted Lha! additionaJ documentation of traffic and safety problems. is nccced. Transi!ion from EI Camino Real Some disC"ussion focused on the plans for transilion from curb and gutler on EI Camino Real to an alternative drainage feature in Barron Park Gerwral consensus deveioped around a one-lot transition area. Application of Design Guidelines Meth.ods for applying [he design guicielines were discussed at length. \Vhile general acceptance of the proposed approaches s.eemed tc develop, Guestions remain about which. streets will be considere-d busy .and which streets are quiet. In !>Orne cases, it was pointed" out that a single street may be busy in one part and quiet in another. Aesthetics Many residents reiterated tr.;:J any new valley gutter:; or rolied cum'S s.hou!d be colored to blend with ex.isting .'>l!rrolJndings. 100) as EF.SJ=O 4-4 I ~ , .. )-""."! ... ::- :i".'-'" SccliNJ 5 Community Me€ling No.3 Format and Attendailce The third community meeting was held on Tuesday, September 29, 1992, al the Hoo·"er School O'n Barron Avenue in Barron Park from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. George Bagdon, Assist2.n: Djrector of Public Works, prol/ided a brief imrodu{;tion and a rel/ie","' of the purpose of the study and the meeling. Joe Teresi presented Ihe reSlllts of the two previous rommunity meetings and the mail-in ques:tionnaire survey and led discussion about the recommendations for drain;;ge and street design guidelines. The meeting was attended by 62 residents. The .'neeLing summary is included in AppendLv D. Presentation Joe Teresi .reviewed the key i:uues and general conclusion$. from the two previolls community meetings. He went on to present re;.:ommendalions for the drainage features, pedestrian walkway~, and the criteria to be used to implement the design guidelines. Abbreviated results of the survey were used to promote discussion leading to the contem of the guidelines. Drainage Features Three options for the drainage feature type were discussed: rolled curb, valley gutter or maintaining the existjng condition, In general, it was agreed that the guidelines should provide that Jocal streets will ieceive a valley gutter and collector streets will receive a lolled gutter. Maintaining the eltisting {;o!1dilion of a street (e.g., no drainage fealures) will also be collsidered an option. Local residen:s will have an opportunity to review s.pecific improvements propos...~ for a particular street hcf\lr~ the design is fmaliz-erl. Discussion regarding the transition from existing dra;l1age features (e.g., \crtical curb and gutter) and the color of t!le dralnage fea~ure~ and pedestrian walkways. also occurred. A medium gray color was idenLified as most acceptable for drainage features and walkV\'a)"li. Transition guidelines were discu~sed for areas adjacent to EI Camino Reai and areas where vertical curb and gutter ex.ist on Barron Park streels. The result" of the discussion are documented in the desig!1 guidetines. Pedestrian Walkways The discussion regarding walkways concluded with [he decision 10 consider concrete or asphalt walkways on collector streets only jf the right·of-way ilO_Q other phys.~cal cond~tior:s permit. iOOIO~FI SFO 5-1 I ~ , >--.-'~ ;':-":'.',;'".';,.,;'~~: Implementation Six criteria for the implementation of the guideii'les w~re estab!is.hed and have been jncorporated into Section 5, De:;;ign Guidelines, of this document. Ne"t Steps Residents were advised that the process. and the decisions made to produce the design guidelines would be formali.zed in a report and presented ;0 the City's fir.a.'1ce Commi!tee on October 2J, 1992. Ifapproved, t11e Committee would Ihen recommend ['.) City Council that the design guidelines be approved arid recogrJized .as .a guide for de~ignlng projec15 in the Barron Park area. lOOI05FI.SfO 5-2 Section 6 Design Guidelines Conclusions . ,.-~ . Based on the discussion with Barron Park residents and the input received through sUT\ley responses, 'Ole project team h.as developed proposed street design g1JideI~nes for fUlure improvements in Barron Park. The guidelines incli.:de narrdrlve descriptions that provide o'~'el'ail guidance. intent, and priorities for tn(" design of projecls in Ba!'fon Park. The guidelines also include sample drainage fe.ature detail drnwings {see Figure 2)_ The guidelines can be divided into Lhree basic sections: I) d;-ainage features, 2) pedestrian walkways, and 3) criteria for implementation. Narrative Guidelines Drainage Features Three options for drainage feature type an: available: • Rolled t'Urb (generalJy on collectors) • VaHey gutter (general~y en local streets) • Maintain the e:<istrng condition Drainage features shall be placed at the outside edge of existing pavemenl and within the right-of-way in a manner that is as linear as possible and minimizes roadway narrowing or widening. Drainage features shall be constnJ.-:ted with conerele mixed ',\.:ith 4 pints of carbon black for each cubic yard of concrete to achieve a medIum shade of g:-ay. The trnnsition from existing \i'ertical curb and gutLer to newly proposed drainage features would foHow t."ese guidelines: • • • JOOlO5J"3.SFO There shall be a (me Jot transition area of vertical curb and gutter along the side frontage of properties fronting on EI Camino Real Where vertical curb and gutter exists on Barron Park. strce!). ~t \,It.lill Dill be ex:end~ (e.g., if a half block has vertical curb. it ~ill not be continued for the eiltire brock). ~/here gaps in any eXiStlng vertical curb and gulter eXist, they will generally be ftlled in with addi[ional vertical curb and gutter. The option of rernoY"lng 6· j , ., • .~. existing ~tions of vertical curb and gutler will .al~ be cons.idered, subject to a review of the amount of existing. gutler and the des.irt"s of affected ~sidents. Pedestrian Walkways Con<:rete or asphalt wal~'3ys will 0111)' be considered on collecfor streets and will be constructed only if the right-of-way It!d. other physical condllior!s permit. • Walkways shall not be placed on locai street'ii. • Collector streets shall be candidates for walkways if there is. space ava!iable outside the existing pavement and wilhin the City s.treet right-of-way. • Where walkways are proposed, they shall be uniform on a given Mreet. • WalJcv..ay material shall ~ conCl"cle o. asphall--i:oncrete waikwcys shall be colored the same as t!1e drainage feature, The minil11Um walkway width shall be 4 reel. • In general. collector streets Ilear schools that serve as access to the school shall be considered a priority location for pedesLrian w·alkways. • Where walkways ex.ist on lQ9I Barron Park streeL .. , they will Il.Qt be exiended (e.g., if 3 half block has a s·ldewalk, it will nOl be continued for We entire block). • There shall be a one lot tnmsi!ion area of walkway along the side frontage of propenies fronting on El Camino Real. • \\'"here gaps in any e;:;isting walkways e:c;st. they will generally be filled in with additional walkways. The option of remDv;ng ex.isting. sec.tions of walkways will also be considcred, subj~,:-t to a review of the amoum of existing walkway and the dcsire~ of afft'.(;~ed residenl.~. Los Robles Avenue between La Donna Street and Laguna Street has h¢en identified as a ]ocation that may accommodate a decomp.Jsed grdnite path due (0 ils. separation from the roadway. Approval from Santa Clara Valley "\/at[T DISlrict would be required for lhi'i improvement because the path wO;JJd be located within District righ!-of-way above their box culvert. Criteria for Implementation of Design Guide!in.s • The City will not create a new program to construcl street and drd..inage improvements throughout Barron F-2.rk all al once. Improvements will be 6-2 incorporated into ongoing City s:Orm drain, street resurfl;cing, and sidewaik projects. • Improvements will be de5igned tel fit within exi$ling right-of-WOlY and to minimize the impacts all existing land.s.capil1g and parking pauern!. Pavement width :)hall remain at least as wide as e)j,j~ting pavement, where possible. • Improvements will be CDnSlructed on a block-b),-block bz..';.is, rathEr than in l; piecemeal fashion. .. Improvements will be designed so as not to adversely affect drainage from private properties. • • 100 I OSF,UFO Separate design gui-delines shall be applied to collettor and local streets. The exact location and e~tent of actIJaJ improvements .. ", .. til be delermined with neighborh()()j input on a case-by-case basis. 6-3 Figures H Ii " j I ! 11111111-"" \" :t " -----,~, •• --.... -:.- LIMITS OF STUDY AREA BARRON PARK ·COLLECTOR STREETS. BARRON PARK MAP Figure 1 $J 1.., ,".x 3-KEYWAY TO l3e-lOCAITD~ WH€R:EVe-R S'VEWAlK, SIOeWAll( CO~NE~S, OR ~f'.I\IEWA.'1S A.SUi CURB i ROL.lED CURB AND GUTTER CL~SS 8 CONCRET= TYPIC~L DOWELS AT .lfJINTS ; .... [;flTrCALL'I' CENTEfi[D1 --,------- + I '-____ ,.--2' T- , .:".",; . I .:.,-..... . '> ..... ~ ~I . ~ .~ -" ______ .1 , . .' ~. :. .". . ..... . . .." .. -.-." .. ".' ~ . ..;-::-----.. 4' CLA.SS :2 i\.vuF1~-(3AiE 8~SE :.:.' . ".-..... VALLEY GUTTER Figure 2 k<",,,,,,,:':.:::."'.:::p"'_s"o-----------------------------CHMHIIl---- .' Appendix A Meeting No.1 Summar)" A-J City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Barron Park Street Design Standards Community Meeting March 26, 1992 ----------------------.---- AGENDA I. Welcome and Introduction, Joe Teresi, Palo Alto Public Works II. Project Background, Mark Johnson, CH2M HILL A_ Project Purpose B. Meeting Goals and Groundrules C. ProjCJ;( Ac(ivili~s to Date III. Street Design Issues, Charles Gardiner, CH2M HILL A. Street Uses B. Drainage C. Aesthetics D. Maintenance E. COSt of Improvements E Right-of-Way Issues IV. Street Design Approaches, Mark lohnson A. Vertical curb, guller, and sidewalk B. Ro1led curb with unpaved parking and walkway C. Va1ley gutter with unpaved parking and walkway D. Ditch and culven with u!1paved walkway V. Applying Street Design Standards, Mark lohman A. Consider current streets and drainage B. Major streets C. S ide streets D. Dead ends and cuI-dc-sacs VI. Impiement DeSign Guidelines, loe Tere5i A. Timing B. Funding C. Responsibility VII. Conclusion and \\Trap-up, Mark lohmon ""'--::--U j"' <-; Ofm i I MEETING !'IOTES SUBJECT: - " ';;::-' .•.. <C·..: _ __/',t ,,;;' -""--'- Barron Park Drdinage Design GUidelines Community Mee.ing No. I MEETING DATE: March 26, 1991 LOCATIO=-:: Hoover SC1100l DATE ISSUED: PROJECT: A TI'ENnEES: April I, 1992 NOTES BY: A, Schuler SF032749,BP,20 Joe Teresi/City of Palo Aito, Public Worh Mal! CosliganfCi!y of Palo Alto, Public Works Mike Jackson/City of Palo Alto, Mainrenance Mark Johnson/CH2M HILL Charles GardinerlCH2M HILL Andy SchuierlCH2M HILL Barron Park ReSldenl; (Appro" 50) CHMHILl Community Meeting No. I was heJd to l're.senl to residents of Barron ParK several approaches to Drainage Design guidelines for their neighborhood and to receive inpLit on the community's needs and preferences, A copy of the agemja (AI~hment A) w:;,s dlstribu~ed tll the aHer.GCes. Communit)' commcms were noted on a b[olter, The foHowing is i1 .5ilmmary of the meeting discussion as indic.ated by agenda item nlJmbers. II. PROJEC1' BACKGROUND A. CH2M HILL's involvement with the Palo Alto Stol"m Drain Master Plan was briefly discussed. :II. STREET DESIGN ISSUES A. Street U ... 1. AutomobHes: Safe speeds should be maintained. School bus speeds are also a concern, e~pecia.il/ on Maladero Avenue and Los Rabies Avenue. Stop signs would be beneficial at some locations, 2, Bicycles 3. Pedestrians: There was. SOr:1C debate as to .... "tlether pedestrial"'. walkways are desirable, Some believe thaI not having walkways maml.ains the rUid] fee1 of ""<:. .'~"-"'''''''''''''''''------ , .... MEETL"IG NOTES Page 2 April I. 1992 &rron Park. while others believe that walkways are necessary for safel~. especially near schools and in high-traffic ar;,:a_~ 4. Parking (see aesthetics) B. Drainage 1. At some locations: • Low spots exist. There i~ no path for drainage. • Dry sumps do nO! funclion properl)'. • Subsurface drains work w:-II. • Gutlers do not have an outlet (e.g., Solano Dr.,. • Groundswel! is Significant and may conLribute 10 delerioration of the roadw2Y· • Some locations are in a Flood ZQre. 2. Drainage from residences should be accounted for in drainage designs. 3. The drainage guidelmes witI not address drainage probtems al specifiC 1ocations. Rather, the design guidelines will provide standards for future projects which will address specific problems. C. Aesthetics L There was some dissention about whether on-slree: parking should be allowed. The;e are currently some iocalions where it is not allowed. but is tolerated. In general: • On-street parking is ob~tftlcLive to pecfes.:nans and s.treet cle.ani!1g. • Perpendicular parkmg is not fav(l:-ed. • Better deflnition of parking areas is. desirable. • Safety is.a primary COfjcem. 2. Generally. re~idents felt thaI (;oncrete sidewaJks .are not desirabk because of: • Conlribulion to uniform, urban appearance • Color • Ve rtic-al curbs • Straight lines • Appearance of being too format MEETING NOTES Page 3 Apnl I, 1992 The Cil), agreed not [0 impose vertical curb and side',l,.'alk when Barron Park was incorporated into [he City of Palo AllD. S~"eJ.jl residents noted that traffic and population demit;,' :tave inCTe..:lSed since that rime. Better defInition of wa1.k.ing areas may be req,uired at some locations.. Alternative m;;il.erials and meandering 5idewalks are po:-isible approaches. 3, Desirabfe characteris.tics include: • Large setbacks • Trees • Lack of uniformity (maintains a rural feel) • Continuous walking palhs • Flexibility • ConsLstency 4. Undergrounding of utliilies is pan of an em-going program being implemented by the City independeiitJy of the currer.t projecl. D. Mai ntena",::e I. Maintenance requirements s.houJd be considered. 2. City and propeny own.er's roTes. in main1.enance should be defined. E. Cost or impronments J. Costs of alternative designs should be considered. F~ Rlghl~of~way issues and unifonnir,' or design guidelines 1. Four alternatives are possible for dealing with varying right··of-\Io."ay: • Use narrowest availabloe rigtt--of-wa),. • Leave out sidew;;.lks, bike lanes, or parkmg areas to match existing right-of-way. • Purchase nght--of-way. (The Cily docs not consider this an option be:ause of Lhe time in .... olved and the costs ofacqulring righ,··of-wc-:.y). • Vary widths of traffic. parking, and ..... ·alking lanes wlth varying righl­ of-way (suggested b)· a residenq. 2. Different streets have different uses/needs. The design guidelines should provide flexibitity in their appllcalion, especially in the area between t11e drainage feature and the edge of right-of-way. Variation/diversity of streets/properties is a particular value of Barron Park. • MEETING NOTES Page 4 April 1. 1992 3. Uniformity would help solve drainage probl~ms.. 4. Property lines are often poorly defined. The OT)"S tirs.! step sholiid be to define right-of-way and property tines. lV. DESIGN APPROACHES A. Four po~.s.jtJle design approaches were presenled. Copies of each approach were distributed to [he attendees (Attachment B). 1. There was not a consensus '4..'> to the most desirable of the design approaches pre~nted. It was noted that a vertical curb provides the best drainage and the greatest safety_ Drainage dite-Mes have the greatest maintenance requirements. 2. The rolled~urb and valley guner approa.ches to be fa ... 'ored. 3. Weed gn.'wlh and mud on unpaved wa!kloll.'ays is a concem. Decomposed granite and other materials should be considered for parking and ~atk.ing areas. 4. Boundaries betwc!eo uses should be defined and enforceable. 5. Handicap access is impoonant. V. APPLYING STREET DESIGN ST .... ND ... RDS A. Flex.ible appiication by area is. desJrdble. VI. IJ\IPLEMENT DESIG!\' G VIDELINES A. Timing: The design guideline proJecl does not include a !tCheduJe for sper.;ific improvement projecls. Improvements ...... 111 be made gradually. poos.s.ibly as part of projeus recommended in Storm Drain Master Plan. B. Funding: The residents of Barnm Park are currently payin,g for drainage improvements. through their storm drainage utility fee-. The City does not plan to create an Assessment District to pay for improve:nents. ~~;., " MEETING NOTFS Page 5 April I. 1992 CENERAL NOTES , --'- '." . ' 1) 7:00 p.m. was. early for at ieasl one resident; we should consider :'"Iaving the nexi mecttng la1er. 2) The survey should ask residents to prioritize use5., such as parking and ~cslri~ns, as wen as other is..<;ues, such as safely and preservation of trees. 3) The survey should be tabulated. by address. This. will facilitate determining varying needs. by area. , -.-•. Append;, R Suney Results ,. ,-,~'~-;1~ K, A summary of the survey results is included in Ibis .!)Cction. The s.ur\'t'y ..... ·'as. mailed to 1,670 Barron Park residents. A total of 545 responses were :-cceived (124 from res.idenls of collector streeLo;; (Matadero Avenue, Los Robles Avenue. Amaranta Avenue, Laguna Avenue, Mayben Avenue, and Coulombe Dr:ve) and 411 from residents of other streels. Readers should note that of the 545 surveys.. 237 (43 percent) indicat<:d at some point on their survey that "no change" was their preference [44 of 124 (35 perCe'll) on collec!or streets and 193 of 421 (46 percent) on other streets.]. ]1] reviewing the resull.,S, readers should note that the survey asked the respondent to leave blank any items com;idered not important or nol applicable. Therefore, the number of noes recorded does not necessa."i:ly indicate that respondents 1I0[ed against that item; .some respondents may have left it blank for other rea..~ms: 1t is therefore not appropriate 10 compare the number of yeses atld noes to determine a commulllty -\lote" on thaI item. The most appropriate interpretation of the "-esults is to examine the degree and strength of positive response for each ~Iem. The degree (If positi\,t s.upport is. indicated b) tnt: lumber of yeses indicated by respondents (total nLimber of rankings or checks) for each item. The strength of positive suppOrt is indicated by the average ranking; the lower the average rdJ1k, the more people rated that item as important (l =most important). lOOI/XP) SFO B-1 ~ ,.----.. ' ..... ,"'" ............ = .. ' --- J -,,""-< F .... __ ~_ April 22. 1992 Dear Barron Park Resident: The city of Palo A.ltc Public v.'or'ks Departrr;ent is in the process of developing a set of street/dr-ainage guidel ines for the Ba:ron Par~: neighborhood as p.art of its storm Drair1age Master Plan. The guidelines ara intended to establish the structural and aesthetic s"td.!"'ldards for future street and drainage iI:1proverne-nts in Barron Park:. The enclosed survey is your opportunity to provide input to the development of these guidelines. I'm sure that most of you ...... ould ~gree that Barron Park has a distir.ct lOOK and feel. Over the years, there has been vocal opposition against standard c!Jrb, gutter, and side,.,aD:, but no clear alternative design has been agreed upon. The City Council has asked Public Works staff to ... !ork ..... ith the Barron Park comrnuT'lity to develop a set of street and drainage guidelines for the neighborhood. The developwent of these g~idelines ~ill not change the look. of Barron Park: over!"light. Rather they .. ill be implemented over time as other City proje:::ts (drain·3.ge iroprovements, repaving, utility ~ork, etc.) are constructed in the area. Because we want to be sure that the design guidelines are consistent with neighborhood values at"d concerns, we are actively seeking public input through a series of com~unity meetings ar.d -3 written questionnaire survey. We received preliminary input fran Barron Park resident.s at the first community meating on J1arch 26. The enclosed surJey is intended to provide everyone in Barron Park an opportunity to help dp.velop the guidelines. We will be holdjng another community meeting or. May 21 at. 7:00 at the Hoo'Jer Sebeol (800 Barron AVenue) to discuss the results of the survey and to refine the design goidelines. The guidelines .... ill be revie'>,"ed fu~ther by the Finance Committee of the City COlJncil and e,,'entually will be approved by the full Council. Please take a few ~oments no~ to fill out the enclosed questionnair-~ and return it irl the postage-pa id envelope by MAY 12. Your input can help tc ensure that future street and drainage improvemen~s in Barron Park will maintain the unique feel of the neighbortJod. ! f you ~ ave any quest.ions, please contact Matt Cost igan il"'. the Public Works Departr.'lent at 329-2469. Thank you for your cooperation and interest in the future of BarroD Park. SincerclYI ~,7~ foe Teresi Seni.;:,r Engineer iI fI • Barron Park Questionnaire ~. ~ 1h: Chy ')f Palo Alto Public ·"'orks Department i.> deve1cping new drcinage and: street design slan:jaros for the Barren Park area. We are inrereste<f in ht.aring your vlews about dralnaJe and stree( design fearures. PLEASE COMi'LETETHIS BRIEF SURVEY AND RETURN IT IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE BY MAY UTI!. Th!lIlk you fo;-your time. 1. What is the nam<' of your street? _______ _ What is the nearest cross street?' ______ _ 2. What are the most signiiicant results to be e.chieved by a set of street and drainage design guidelines. Please rank the following issues according to )~ur .... j~. of lhclr impc:x1.arlU as rc.>uTLS 10 ~ .ach~v~. (1 '" Highest prio:'it)'. leave blank. any)oo ra:l do fIOI. need [0 be ac1dres.'Ol'.d) Your Street _ r>esignaLicn or parking arc:-1S _ Improved drainage _ Cre&ti{)n of wa1k:ing area _ CrcaLion of bicycling area _ Impro,'oo safelY _ Conslstl"ftll'l,:ighborhood appear.Joce _ Definition of CIty malll[C!Wlce limits _ Tidiar neighborhood .appearance __ Olher (~clry) __ _ Ban'!):::! Park as a whole _. [)e<;igrlatioo of parking arc"H _ Improved drainage _ Cn:atii)f" of 'lll<alkmg .are.a ____ CrcaLion of hie ycling ar{'.3 __ lmprovcd safety _ Consisteni l){'.igtlbort"X>J aPJ-~.u.arx:e _ Definition ol CiLy rrainlenan("..e limits _ TLdi.e.r neighborlloo:! a.:::opear.dnce _ Other (<<peeify) _ 3. What are important uses of Barron Park strcch? Please. ran~ lhe ro,lo .... ·lng SlI'CCt elcmclilb. in l(:nn~; of lhcir n:laJ..i"c imponance LO you (l '" Highest pnoriLY,lc.a\,!.': blall!. an}' }'vu rcd should nor b.-: ~OVlOC,j) Your Street- _ PedcsL-i.an walk:\Io-ay _ Dri ... ing tanc-s ___ Paj'i<ing atC'--1 Drainage coniiol Other (spc-of.\') _____ _ "Busy" Streets Pedcs(!ian waIkwaj' Dri\'jrj~ LlI1cs f>-'..ukirtg area _ !)raj n.:lgc: en,,1 rnl _ BIcycle blK"/p::llh _ ____ OlllCf {specify'.! "Quiet" Streets _ Dn~'ing lanc~ P.m,ill~ area DiainJ~C conu-o! B I{ yde lane/path List :s.t.reets in Barron Park that you consider "bus-y". ______ _ ~ .... Q~--... !IiIi;.1r.I." .... -------- ICD 4. What art: acceptable drainage control appt"oachcs in Barro:l Park1 P~a<)e rank yOW" prefm:nc:es for draina,ge C(";illl'02 approa.:hes. (I ",. Mo~t prererred, teavt blank any )'Oll fee: s~ould net be-u..<:ed) _Rolloo curb ~ Example: Maybell Avenu.e aloog Jllan.J. Briones ParI; bC'.lwCC.ll Clemo Avenue and Coulombe Drjvr:. E:J..aITlp:c: Dri;coll Court (orr "'tarbell A venul" ncar Donald Dri\'c) --Valley gutter ~ Example. Maybell Avenue hC't .... (';(".n Thain W<J)' dnd Raker AVl!fluc __ No change _ 0"", (spodfy) _____ _ 5.. Where are pedestrian walk~'ays appropriate in Barron Park? (Chc:..:k all t..~al olpplj') _ On ~ Stret'.ts Near schools To complete uisting waft.wa)'s _ 0I.hct areas (spedf)') _____ ~~_ Nowhere G. What are appropriate materials for walkways In Barron Park? r:ca~ l.lllk y,1Ur prcic.reoces roc walkway n1;:1lcrials. (j :0 Most prdcrrc.j, kavc blJ.!J~ 'HI)' you (c('i ~h{)uid not Ix. u::c.J ,I Cone .... _Asphail Gravd __ Dccomposc.d' gramtc _ Other (:qx-,cify) __ 7. What are important factors when creating a design guideline for pedestrian walk­ ways? P1::a::se nuU:: dlC follOwing faclOl"!l in k':nns of their relative im~e 10 YOt:.ilt1d I~t your prererence. ir ally. under e:.IICh faclOr. {E :: Moo imponant) Factor Preference Colo< Te).tlIe ___ Maintainabllity _ Lineae (ex-noo-tinear).appearance _Othoc<_ify) __________ _ 8. Where are standard vertical (""Urbs .and ~idewalks appropriate in Barron Park? _ "To COO'.J)lne blocks Wz:1. alrtaO)' I\a'le ~s or "erucal curb am.:! sidc\l.'al\. _ On sides cJ properties along El Cami roo Real _1"0""'= _ Othoc (specify) 9. Should the design guidelines include some provision for the physical definition {e.g. border of boulders, concrete or wooden strip) of (1) the edge of the City right-of-way, and (2) the limjt of City maintenance responsibility (if different froID the City right. of-way Line)? Right-of-way linc y" No Limits of' Cit~, maintenance 10. Are you willing to maintain and provide upkeep for parking and/or walking areas within the City right..or·way in front of your home? Yes No I 11. Right-of-way widths in .barron Park vary widely, even witt!in an individual block. How should the design guidelines handle this variety of right-of-way widths:? ~ (Check yo:lur preferen~) "The width 01. ~t/d.rainage-improvementS on 2!l individLIa1 block SOOlJlC be uniform and should be as wide as me narruwesl section of ti-.ru bloclc ,... .. ----_. '''''ofW'Y~i~C':i:. -C," .. ... TIle widlh of sueetldr"ainage improvemo:nLS shoold take ad c'3nLage of existing right of-,,\i<ly and Val)' in J!ccordarce with tile avai.1abk righl-or-w.l.Y, 12. Please tell us how soon you believe improvements should be implemented in Barron Park.. (Circle-, the apprurria1e numbcr) Immediately , Whell other projCCl'i are o:m"tructcd (e.g., !;G"{'.<"{ rcpa.ing, dr3.ma~c implQ\llCmCflLS, CLe.) 13_ Ple.ase provide an)'" ot.her <.",omrnent:; about drainage and -stTt.~t design guidelines in B :lrron Park. PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED RETURN ENVELOPE TO RETUR1\ THE SURVEY llV MAY 12TH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. :--.- . , _ L!S Barron Pa .... Survey Results 2-What ar~ the most slgnlficant results: to be acrue\'/"d by a se! ofsfre-et and drainage design guideli .... ? The strength of positive support is indicated by average ranking; the lower the average rank the more people rated !hat iteM as important (I =most important). RaidtaU of Col1et1or Streets Resideatll TOOl! tr...., N Yes No A"" Iv" No Avo Yo.rStrftt PartiDg: 3l ~;I~ > 114 3<J7 ~~! Dninage kji ~, 19! ..t,~Z 1Valkin& :-~p?1l !~) 110 3IL [[56 , Bioyd"" 39 85 2,' SS JJ) 3,83 Safety f:j}b7J ilii 'W 27' ~ Coo5istcncy 401 84 2,7--1 l'S4 -267 2,86 MainIenaD« 3<J !J4 4.23 f-j~, 320 4,02 Twlle< t~ p78 2." ~ 272 2.98 No Change 12 ,~ 00...-17 ., Barroo ...... Pul<iog 2B 96 3.33 ;~ 307 J"~ Dr:aina&e V~ .2 iJ2-' IS< i"14' WaDdng ... 80 2.ll 277 ~, ,44 I if, Bi~ ., 82 It1f m 288 s.fOt)-:j!} :m .1 ' ,,~ 25J iUj,' CORSisten<y 41 83 2~ ~ ,.,. "" Maintena:na: JJ 9' ~.ll J~ 316 4.29 TlidJer 4ll s.; 2 3-1 249 ),12 -No Chang< 10 2'1 Other 8 JJ I .. ! , .3-Wbat are important uses of Barron Park stfl!(!lS' Taul. ToW AVE Y" 1'00 R.1T\l; J.1.-YOQr Strett Walkway Driving PIDJng Dntinoge Bicycle No Cflange 28 00>er l<J 38-BIII)' Sh-eet Walkway t:~~ 223 Driving ~ Patkit\g 207 Drainage ;.67 Bicycle ,~ lUi No Clwoge 1~' 0II>e>" 9 Je-Quk<Stn<1 WaJnay :161. DrMng -118 Patting 18] Dr2i""F ---249, Bi<:Y<" ~< 3JQ NoCbon$e 2. O<bcr 5 3D-Which streets do you consider busy? Tot.!s To<aI ),,,, Los ROOt", 391 Maladeto 2i6 Barn>o 220 Laguna 18J """"""'" 13. Lo Dc .... 103 Ma)t>ell 85 Coulombe 11 No"" 011><, 36 ,- /- ',·---___ H''''''''-___ - 4~What art' acceptable drainage control approaches for Barron Park? Totals TotdJ Ayg Yes No R;ml VcrticaJ Curb 151 RoUc:d. Curb :-243 Valley Gur'..er [>-ffi D;!Cb ~ Culvert ~ No Change _~ Othe< 35 394 2,1 302 ~ 298 '2<'i 396 ~Li, 361 '::::TIl S--\Vhere are pedestrian walkways appropriate'? AD S<=<s Busy Streets Near Scboo[s Comp E:'\:i§ling No.-_ 0Iher TO'.a] Yes TOCa" 6-Vt'hat are appropriate materials for walk'W'3ys in Barron Park? T ..... iTotaI Avo&- Yes No Rook CoocTete p--~ HI ,12-· Asphalt 11 328 1.8 0--.1 f'---'jii3 362 2"" Dcr;. Granire rd~ 339 ----~?~ Nom: 38 0Iher ,. 7~\\onat are lmportanr factors when creating a dE-sign guidefine for wa1kways'1 Totals ITotaI A'·g Yes No R:o.ilk Color -~;; 388 ~-~ Texture ' 21 m '1""2 Maintainability >-jij'. 238 ~4! CO>! I~. 280 2.2 (Non )Linear 1~]j9 ll!<i 2,i( None I 31 Othe, I .. -'--~~--.. ' ••• 4iIllloIllll.,.rl'!iilll"'--- · ~;r < -.,-~ .. -.~ '"""'" :0, oJ ' ".' !!!:-W'herc are s!andard vcnical curtl:-; 311.3 <,.idl:\L~I~<,. .1rrroJirialt.!" 1 C'JI ah JTCl..a;i lY'" I To oompleu 187 E1 Camino Side :::;---214 ' Nowhere ? 10 j J O<he> -'3\ 9-Shoold the design guidelines include defl;lilion of bound aires" Totab Total Ya No Right-or-Wa)' 205 '-'} U; Edge Qf Mainl-e 216 ''-li~ ,----No R«ponre 129 Q<he. 12 / JO-Areyou willi.'1g to m.1inrain and pm ... ide upkeep for parking and walkjn,g areas Totals fT,o,lal ..-.-b'es N<! I I-How should design guidelines h2ndle \'ariations in rign!-(Jf-way? Ftl Narrowest Adjust 10 Fil NoC~ngl" Other TOUlI Yes (~~-?!: 166 H JG Total~ 12·How soon s}muld improvements be implemented'; Residents ranked timing ofimpfemen.ting improvements by I "'"immediately. and 5-"'when other projects are comp[eted' TotSlh Number O-lmmediatel ... ) Ranked 49; II .­-" .', .. ' lOO:l}5FA.SFO Appendix C Meeting No.2 Summary e-l ~~ __ .""7.i_p ____ ------- • - City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Barron Park SInd Design Standards Community Meeting May 11, 1~2 Agenda L Welcome and lotroouctlon~ Joe: Teresi, Palo Alto Public Works A-Project Background B. M,~eting Goals C PrDject Activities to Date n. l'riorit)llssue5, 0.,1e< Gardiner, CH2M HILL A. Fml Public Meeting B. Survey Results C. Commul1ityowjde Issues D. Busy Streets E. Quiet Streets IlL Priority Uses. Mark Joonson, GUM HILL A. Driving S. WalKing C Bicycling D. Drainage' E. Parkins [v. Design Featur~.s. A. Landsc.ap;ng B. Driving Lanes. C. Wanting areas D. Bicycling E. Drainage F. Parking V. Narrative Guideilnes VI. Preliminary Cross-sec,iotlS A. Busy Streets B. Quiet Streets VI1 Conclusion and Wrap-up MEETING MINUTES MEETING ATTE:'IDEES: Joe Teresi, City of Palo At'" Matt Costigan, City cf PalL1 AIIO Mark John",n, CH2M HILL Cb.,les Gardiner, CH2 M HILL Leslie Regos, CH2M HILL Barron Park Residents (lIs.t attached) MINUTES BY: Lesli~ Regos. DATE: June II, 199; SUBJECT: Barron Park Community Meeting, May 21, 1992 PROJECT: SF032749.BP,30 Introd uction CHMi-i11l The meeting began with an introducLion given by Joe Ter:si. Joe e;(plair.~.d that the reason for holding a communit), meeting was that Ihe Clty Council had dire<::led the Publk Works Department to determine the oommuni:y's needs and preferences for guidelines for future street improvements. Council requested the study bec3use BaiTon Park residents have objected to City staffs recommendation for inclusion of Cit)' standard vertical curb, gutter, and side"Walk in recent development p!ar,s. There are (! wide variety of street designs in the neighborhood at pre~nt. The intent of the guide-lines is to ensure thai new development and paving, drainage, or utility projects in Barron Park produce street cross sections consistent with. local preference~, The iast community meeting ',vas held on March 26th. foEowin,g that meeling, a stJlvey ~as mailed to approximately 1670 commun:ty members. As of May 18th. 505 had been relUmed. Community Issues Charles Gardiner reviewed the results of Ihe first community mee:.'lng and the survey. From the first community meeting two issues appeared to be most important to Barron Park residents: U) Maintaining the rural feel, withoul adding uniformity to the area and (2) Safety of pedestrians and cyclists, panicurarly on the busy streets. \A."as. voiced as a concern. The tablJIation of the survey was. divided by ·collector slreets· (the busiest streets) and ·other streets." The resulls indicate that residents. on the collector st;eel.!-were most concerned with safety, and residents of the other stre-el.s fell drainage was a priority issue. Following are some comments regarding [he analY5is of the sur.'e.;.' data and communil)' isslJes. · . . . ' • It is not a sdenlitic ar.alysis ar.d as s'Jch, the results sho~ld only be considered as gt:nerJ.I trends or preferences as opposed to providing definitive results w!lh documented stati:;tical signiticance. • The survey did not clrarly provide a choice for no ch.t'rlge. • Whe.i Barron Park was annexed to Palo Allo t'nere were firm commiimen!:!I that no sidewalks or vertical curbs. would be built. • The I'lced for drainage improvements was identified by re~idents in man) areas of Barron Park, • Many other residents fet; that drainage was flne and puddles after rainsto:ms are a benefit to the communily. QuestiCln: \-Vho came to Council to recommend street improvemellt ,guidelines? Answer: Some local residen1.5 have complained about side'M.alk designs for recent development proposals in Barron Park. The Council then dire.:ted Public Works to work with the community to develop some alternative design guidehne-s.. Question: How can we make all improvements at one time to cause as little incon .... enience and disruption as possible to the neighborhood? Answer: The intent of the ~'Jidelines is (0 coordinate an,Y jmpro ... cm~llb with OIher projects to avoid digging up streets severaJ times, Question: Wllat types of drainage options are there? Answer: Vertical curb, rolle;j curb. valley gutter. and ditd'" and culvert are Ihe four choices of drainage control that were presented at the first comm'u.nii;.-meeting, Question: Can we have drainag.e in the center of the streets'! Answer: It is not safe to dri .... e when dminage is running down the middle of !.he roadway. Ultimately, dri',ing safely is. a priority on (he Slreets, Question: \\on) were drainage a;1d sidewalk issues combined on the sur.cy and al these meetings? Answer: Drainage and waJkway is::;ues are closeij reIaleO in ma::;! cases beCil.ll!.e the drainage feature at Ihe edge of the stree, must provide a trCinsition to the walkway area, 2 • ,~.< . .. Question: Are specitic drainage prohlems; identified in Barron Pmk? Answer: .,"l". " • . "" The City has recei-."ed comp:aints about several drainage problems and the Storm Drain Masler Plan will identif), in gre,:.rer detail the iT1ajor dra:l1ag~ impro\,C'ments needed in the Barron Park area. Question; Who pays for [he street and drainage impmvements? Answer: No new costS will bt: incurred by the homeowner. Future improvements would be paid for by the developer. or through existi.ng City re,venue if they are part of City paving, dr-otinage, or utility improvement proj~lS. Question: Will Were be impro\'emenls to address the flooding? Answer: Th"!re are two steps necessary 10 addre.ss flOoding. Collection of surface water 10 several p:>ints and the removal of the runoff through subsurface pipe'ines. The street design guidelines wit] particularly address the surface wa!er collection. The Master Flan is addressing major pipeline needs, Question: h tJ'1ere a map showing drdinage improvement:; proposed in Ihe r.,·1aster Plan? Answer: Tre Masler Plan is still being developed so maps are net yet availabie. Charles Gardiner further summarized the resurts of the first commilnity meeting and survey as follows: • Or. z. communit),-wide level, maintaining the exLc;.ting rural/rustiC feel 10 the area, minimizing change, and reducing mairil.:'oallCe by both City and residents 'Were the highelit priON). $ For busy streets.. safety, drainage, walking areas, and tidier appearance were identified as high priority issues. They are listed in order of preference. • FOT quiet stre.ets, drain2ge. safety, tidier appe.arance. and walking areas were priority issues. Que.'lItion: Safety is an issue, but is there any data comparing safety in Barron Park to safety in other areas of Palo Alto? Answer: A study is in progress on the safety of bl(."ycles, pedestrians, and cars in part of Barron Park and thc surrounding arf',J.S becau5e of the CaItrain accident. 3 f i After some concerns from the communilY about th: need for guidelines. the proJe.ct l.ed.m reitemtod that the purpose of the gl!idelines is .so the Cit)' can give guidance about what a developer mayor may not do ....... hen constructing in the Barroo Parl.: are..a--They are being proposed to prol~·t the community's i!1teres!. De.ign Features and Issues The team presenroo a list of features and issues developed from comtnl.!nity re5ponses. Landscapjng Drivjng WallUng Bicycling Drainage Parking Question: Maintain existing trees. and lanjs.:aping AHa\\' safe, efficil:n! vehicle travel Busy Streets-Create separate '\O\:alking area to improve safety Quiei Streets -Walking area can be shared .... i!h dr~"'it'!g and parklng .reas Busy Streeis-AJlow for bicycling area Quiet Srree~-Cyclists share road with \.'ehic!es Busy Streets-Rolled curb preferred 10 pro .... ide separaliun between autos and pedestrians Quiet Srreets-Valley ,guner preferred Lo~, priority for chang,<! How do the numbers from the survey tabulation support these findings: Answer: The survey results were nOi analyzed: the first communi!} meeting and res-ulls (If the survey were used to get a general feellng of what ",,'err;;: the most important issues to the community_ The presentation heie is intended to move tov.."2Id consensus and develop guidelines that are acceptable to Barron Park residents. Question: \Vill we: jose ill1Y part (If our yard and t"ees if a separate bike and pedestrian \W3Jk'Way are bu:lt along the ruadway? AnS\ller: We want to m~nimjze the changes OIl U"IC street right..of-ways and the City does not intend to purchase additional right-cf-way_ Maliltaining the prc)er.t landscape is a priority to the City, 4 " Comment: Consider olle-way traffic in selected areas. Question; In reference to a question on the survey regarding the g:.J i dei;l1cs for physical appcara:n!.."e of the walkways, what is non-lil1ear? Answer: A meandering walkway that would folloN the existing curves. and contours of the ngnHlf-way. Question: [f a street is not wide enough for a sidewalk on either s,dc, CaIl a sidewa1k be placed on one side of the roadwdY and nol the other: Ans"tVer: Yes, that is possible. Question: As a design thai was not offered 3S a choice Oll the sur-vey, how about usmg a covered ditch and culvert for drainage improvement? Answer: That approach would require construction of a cor.crele·lined channel covered with a continuous grate, which would be very cost!),. Proposed Narrative Guidelines The project team Iheo presented proposed fl.amlli .... e guidelines for !j,lreet improvements. • Maintain exisling landscaping • Work within existing right-of-way • Pavement width to remain a~ least as \oI.'ide as existing pa .... ement • fmprovements should not adversely affect drainage from pm2.!c properties • Improvemems to be implemented as pan of on-going projects • Improvements not to be implemented in a piecemeal fashioll, minimum one block improvements • Transition from EJ Camino Rea] with verticai curbs to a rl,s,tancc of one lot deep • Fill in exisling ,gaps of vertical curb and sidewalk; do no'. extend vertlcal curb and sidewalk 5 1 a Comment: ft is Illegal to park on the sidewalk:£. Questk,o: Is there a timeline for these s!:-eet and drat!1age impro','emenls to occur? Answer: No. As change and development occurs, the guidelines 1I..,1!1 be for the d~sir:g of those proj eels. Qu('~tion: On the tnns.ilion from EI Camino in!o Barron Park, you sound pro-sid~walk. Answer: Safety is an issue at tilal particujar spot. A curb one lot deep provides a safe transition area. Question: Wlly must sidewalks or curbs be extended {off of El Camino): Answer: Again for safety reasons t.~ere should be a place for pede~trians to stand and wait to cross roadways. A curb helps guide cars tuming the comer and protects the pedestrian walkway. Comment: Children <::rossing the .meet have no place to stand and wait for crossing or buses. The residents gener.s.lly accepled the proposed one 101 transilion art'..a from curb to Barron Park design. The lot thm fronts EI Camino Re.al is. typically used as commercial pmperty. Question: WHi the streets around the Matadero Creek projecl be rep:;. .... 'ed when the project is complete? Answer: The Santa Clara VaJley Water District will be respons.ible for the repaving of any di~.tr.:rbed roadways or w.alk'.'l·ays.. Comment: There are only 6 problem areas. for drainage in Barron Park and these are pa'1: of the Matadero Creek maintenance. Comment: Place a few strategic drains only whtre drainage is a problem and flll in the lo\.\, spots that collect run-ofL Comment: You need 10 look at ihc aes.thetics of the neighborhood, like parking and issues other than drainage, Why nut plH the money info improving on other areas? 6 -----_ ... ,. . . __ ~. ;/l~~-;"~>~r~" Question: Can you mail the results back to U~? Ans-.ver: W~ will mail the resula 10 those of you here who~ addres~s we have from the sigr.-in sheet, and we will also provide the re~I!Il5 in [he homcO'.~'J1er·s group fOi use in the newsletter. QLj..estion: Can you have a 5to~mdrai.'l without curbs and sidewalks:' An~wer' Yes. however the systtm is not as effecti,,'e withoL:t solTle means. to collec! and direct the flow, such as gutters or curbs. QuestiOil: If you put a curb Ln, it will not blend with the driveway bf"{'a:Jse of the hr.ight changes. Answer: Some treatment IJ!' grading oehind the curb will be provided, Comment: I feel that I could h$\oe said ~No chargt:" throughout tile survey and r did not. Question: What is this mention about the F1I1dnce Committee reviewing the ,guideline!.? Answer: The Finance Committee of the City Council wili re-vie')'" and hear comment on our suggested g\J\deIines and then make a rec<'mmenda.tiofl ~o the full Cvunci!. The City C01Jncil will make the final decision on the .adoption of the design guidelines. Question: Will we be notified of the Council Meeting? An.swer: We are on the Finance Committee ager-da for Ju1y 14th. olhenl.;ise n0 additiori:3.r mailing from the City is planned. Question: ]s the treatmer.t at the edge of ~he pave-men( cOMidered a guideline? Answer: Yes. Comment: There is a map from a previous. master pJan that shows. the draInage probleO'1s in the area. you need to reference thai map. 7 yilt Proposed Guidelines (or Quiet Sf.eets The project team pre:>ented preliminary gUloehnes. for quit.·' streets. Key fe2ll1re~ include concr~te valley gutters, unpaved walking and parking areas, and no bicycle lanes Question: 'What material will be used for the vall:y gUller? Answer: Concrete. Question: WHI water rema!r. standing above the gutter? Answer: The gutter will be on a constant slope so the water will draill tu coilecrion points. Question: How would you connect the orainage system with the gutter? Answer: The Stonn Drain Master Plan is examining drainage sys:em needs and collection points throughout Palo Allo. Connections Iypically would be via a catch basin connected to a belo'W-ground pipe. Comment: You have no proof that you will be reducing the 1m .. " POlnlS by adding Ihl;!se improvements. Question; Why change the materiai to concrete and not keep the as.ph2.Jt'? Answer: COI1crete provides a more dunble :mrface and edge, The corrcrete can be colored an earth tone so it would blend beuer wi~h the Tand~aping. After some discussion, the residents "Iiere in g:'nerJ.l agl~emen, w;,h the pro;Klscd guidelines for quiet streets. There .... ·'ere specific rt:que.;;ts that cOrl-:"ruclion lJ1ater;a~s be selected that will brend \Iillh toeal surroundlngs (con..:rele sl-Jould be cQloreJ and texturee" not white), Proposed Guide[ines for Busy Streets The project team presenled preliminary guidelines for busy streets. Key fe.atures include rolled curbs, l1ard surface walking areas, and bicycle laries where sufficient right-of-way exists. Que-mon: Where is there suffii;lent righl··af-way 10 use this c()mbinat~on of features? Ans",",,'cr: Tne combination of fealUres would adju5t to match [he exi~l;ng rig'II·(1f-way. 8 --------_.- .~ ... . ... , .... . .. ' Que.!:tion: We have been trying to establish bike :anes on Los RobJe\ but there is not :=-nougll space. We have been lold that we C<irlno! have bike lanes in or:!.,.. Olle direction: there must be dual bike lanes. Answer: 3ike lanes would be proposed in pairs. Question: It seems like the rolled curb wOldd result in a raised walk",·ay. Ar:swer: The street would be g:-aded to avoid G !"aised walkway from the edge of the property. Question: In places where I have seen these rolled curbs and walkways, cars. park straddling the curb. Answer: Some education and enforcement would be f1eeded 10 retrair; people how to use and treal these curbs and walkways. Wil"l'-.oL!! a vertical curb, there will be some parking outside the rolled cu rb Question: Where would the division of the rolled curb and valley gutter be defined frorn busy streets to q:..:i::t stie.ets.? Answer: There would be a transition distance where the curb would gradually slope from a vaIley gulter to a rolfed curb or vice '.'ersa. Concerns with the proposed design on the busy streets were thai parking would occur on the \\-aIkway (i.e. cars parked straddling the rolled curb), the amount of right-of-way available on each street, and the definition of busy .... 'ersus. quiet streets. There was some discussion about the definition of "collector (or busy}" ~treet5 and "q<Jiet" s.treets and the piOposed locations where the gl.'jdeli·nes would be applied. Foi1owing are some commenl~ that Teside:nrs h)d regardirg this topic, • • • Should the designation be made <!:ccording to the tianic count only? "fau can't use just cars to defif1e how "busy" a strter is.. Laguna is nal just a "busy street". l! is nice for ]X>destriall5 and bicyclists.. Puddles do collect on the street. There is no bike area on Laguna. • I see a problem with a. rolled curb on narro'.\' streets. YOLI would need a walking area. 9 --'::' & If ·Y· to .. · . ' .. . . ' -- • We should do a foHow up with the traffIc experts who are performing a study of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycie naftic for a ponion of Barron Park on their tindings. to a.s~ist in the des.ig!lation of street type. Comment: ] question the ~tcgorization of "busy-streets and -quie(" streets. 1he -quiO!t" streets may have bus.y areas, anc the "bu~y~ streets may ha\'e quiet areas. QUe3tion: Can we keep a valley gutt~[ IhrougholJt the entire neighborh,>od: Answer: That approach ~s an option, however a valley gutler does nOI pro .... ,ide the separation between vehicles and pedes!rians that would be provided by using a roll~ curb. Otber FinaJ Commenls • A raised walkway \ovith a rolled curb may cause the need to eievale the driveway to match up. I think a valley gutter would be be."r. • We need uniform treatment. Valley gUller would be the be~t. • Parents who have children coming from outside Barron Park into tile area for SCho..lls want :)afe-crosswaiks for their children. • Busy streets do not nf':e(j walkways on entire street, they need it only where they aTe busy. • You need to count !he t;aftic to determine "busy~. • Venical curb would narrow lhE streets . ., You are asking for our input, we need to knO\\i ho"," they will be used, Ihere is a lot of iI1terpretatiOIl. we want to see thE application of guidelines. • There are more wonhwhile projects in Palo Alto. II is silly to put all this. effvTt into curbs and ~idewaJk design when the libraries are cutting hours and lhe senior citizen programs are being cut. • Putting in sidewalks does nm ~oi ... e all the prohlems. The meeting was Cldjoumed. 10 CITY OF PALO ALTO BARRON PARK DRAINAGEfSTREET DESIGN GUIDElINE..s Community Meeting September 29. 1992 7:00 PM I. Welcome and Introd uction (Georae Bagdon, Assistant Director of Public VlorKsl • Introduce City Staff • Overview of Meeting Agenda • Meeti"9 Purpose and Goals II. Background (Joe Teresi, Senior En\ol=neer, Palo Alto Public Works Dept,1 • Summary of First TlNo Community Meetings III. Recommendations (Jot! Tsrl;!si, Senior EnQineer. Pilla Alto Pub fie Works DePI.) • Criteria ~or Implementation CJf Design Guidelines • Drair'age Features "-Survey Reswlts --Alternari'Jes • Pedestrian Waik ways --Survey Results --Alternatives IV. Summary and Clos;ng lGeOf'tle Ba~dor). Assistant Director of Public Worksl ATfENDEES: MINUTES BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION co:)" OF PALO ALTO George Bagdon Joe Teresi Matthew Costigan Public Works Department Engir,eering Division MEETING MINUTES Assi~tant Director of Public Works Senior Engineer Engi.neer Approximate1), 75 Barron Park residents Matth~w Costigan September 29. 1992 Community Meeting Barron Park Drai.nage and S!Ieet Design Guidelines Project No. 4-TiQ2 The meeting began with L'1 introduction of the City representatives by George Bagdon, As~stanl Director of Public Works. George asked that everyone :!.ign in so that they might receive a copy (If the meeting min.utes and be nourLed as to the dale of the Finance Committee meeting. To enco1Jr:age good interaction, George e..'lcQuraged people witb questions to ask them at any time during the meeting. George exp~ained why City staff was cond\lcting these. oommunhy meeting!.: to develop design guidelines, as directed by the City Council. in response to citizens' complaints. about ponding (nooding) and pe.jesL:ian safety: He identif:ed drainage and walkways as the two major issues to be discu.ssed. George ad'Jlowledged tha t there are residents ~'irnin Barron Park who do not wan t to see any changes made to their neighborhood. He stressed that the City does not intend to impose standard \lertical curb, gulter and sidewalk on Barron Park. residents. City staff is working with tile community to develop an alternative set of design guideline~ for use in Banon Patk thal will enhance, rather than detract from, the rural feeling of the neighborhood. George responded to a question as to why the Public Works Department has recommended the installatiOl"1 of curb, tuner, and sidewalk on some Barron Park de .... elopments by stating that there is currently only one set of City standards. After the Barron Park guidelines are arlop\ed by CO\lnciJ, they will be incorporated into new developments. Someone uked a question concerning the funding of street and dralnage improvements. George (""'plained that residents would not be subject to any new taxe!'. or assessments. but thal current City revenue (e.g. gas tax, utility user:!. tax, storm drain fees) would be used to fund tbe improvements. • • • F ; '" Barron Park Drainage &. Street Design Guidelines Meeting Date: September 29, 1992 Page 2 BACKGROUND f Joe Teresi, a Senior Engineer with Public \Vorks Engineering ga\'e a slimmary of the t'n'o previous co:nmunity meetings. Joe acknowledged that Barron Park has a unique look and feel, and th.a~ residents were not inIerested in the typical "sterile-looking" curb and gutter. Residents want to maintain the -character of Barron Park. Based on jnpu~ received a! Ole t\WO pre .... iO'.ls communi!), meetings, ('In March 26th and May 21st, along with the 545 responses to the wrir'..en quc.stionnaire, the major issue to be addressed is how to improve storm drainage and pedestrian safelY in Barron Park while maintaining t11e rural fee! of the neighborhood. CRITERIA FOR IMPLE. ... !ENTATION OF DFBIGN GlIIIJE:!,lNES. George Bagdon descnbed that dr..s.inage and walkway improvements wouid be incorporated' inco future City construction projects sucJ-, as street resurfacing, storm drajnage improvements, and sidewalk construct; on. Based on the input received from the questionnaire, the majoricy of rcslQents did not consider the impTOllements to be an 'Jrgent need and preferred that the improvements be constructed as a pa.-t of ongoing projects rather lh2n Ihe erration of a new s.epa.<l.te proj eeL George then described the criteria that City staff wO'Jld use whe~ implementing the design guidelines'. 1) the improvements would not be done ail at once and would be incorporated into future street projects, 2) the improvements would be designed to fit within the existing right-of-way, minimizing the impacts on mature landscaping and parking patterns, 3) improvements would be completed on a block-by-block basis as a minimum, and 4) the location and extent of actual improvements would be determined with neighborhood input. Geo"-ge staled ilia! if the residents on a particular street agreed t~at they did not want improvemer.ts made on their street, then that option would a.iso be considered. Joe explained that the type of drainage feature and wa1kway wouid differ depending on the type of SltceL Based Oil the questionnaire, seve!! 5:treets were identlfied as "busy". These streets included: 1) Los Robles Avenue, 2) Matadero Avenue., 3) Barron Avenue, 4) Laguna Avenue, SJ Amaranta Avenue, 6) La Donna Stree::, and 7) Maybell Avenue. Many of these same strects are identiIled by the City as collector streets {as opposed to local streets) • I] ", Barron Park Drainage & Street Design Guidelines Meeting Dtte: September 29, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDAI!Qj'§ TIlt first topic that was diS(:ussed was drainage feature ... Joe explai~ed that the re~ponse from the qUe!:.tionnaire was that two types of draJnage features would be acceptable: rolled curb and valley gutter. A cardboard cutout of ea{'~ type of drainage feature was presented to the audience in order to Clarify how each would look. Joe exp!a.ined that gutt~r.) work to complement an underground storm drain syste,n by directing stormwater to a drain inlet. They wou[d also serve to clearly mark the limits of City maintenance responsibility and protect the edge of the road. Witllout adeql!ate drainage features, water ponds along the ~ge of the f'02dway and accelerates the deterioration of the asphalt pavement. Ioe proposed that rolled curbs be used on the busier streets 10 establish a more distinct separation between autos and pedestrians. The rolJ~ curb wo· ... ld be three feet in width, with a relatively gentle :slope so that auto.s will not "boltom out" when entering a driveway. A concern was nised about the tendency for autos to park up over the lop of Ole curb, forcing pedestrianl out into the street. This problem would have to be addresSed J:!y Police Department enforcement of parking regulations. The other a;cceptable drainage feature, valley gutter, would be used on local streets. The vaIley gutter would be three feel in width, "Vo'ith a 2-elevation difference betw~n the flew hne and the edge of the gutter. Both the rolled curb and the valley gutter would be constru:;ted with concrete. Joe pre.!e!1led some concrete samples that showed tile varying shades. of gray to black that could be achieved by blending an additive to tile: concrete mix. Mest of the audience preferred a mix concaining appro~imate!y 4 pints of additive per clibic yard of concrete. This produces a dark gray color that blends well with the asphalt pavement, b\Jt remains visible enough 10 highlight the edge of the roadway. Discuss:on then turned to the use of standard verne-a! curb and gutter under special circumstances. It was suggested by the City th<ll vertical curbs be installed where. it would fill. in a g.JP on a block that tw. existing sections of vertical cmb. Residents requested that tile option of removing the eJ;lsting vertical curb a.'1d replacing it with either a valley gutter or rolled curb also be available. George indiC"~!-e~ !!"::.~ :..'l:i:; -c:.Y:';":;ii "::vu1d be considered on 2. case by cue: basis, subject to a review of the amount of ex.isting vertical curb and the preferen~ of aff~ted residents. The use of vertical curb and gutter was. also proposed for the side frontages. of properties which face EI Carnine Real This concept was. generaIly accepted by the audience. ""'.:r .. / , !~ t ./" Barron Pork Drainage & Street Design Guidelines Meeting Dale: September 29, 1992 Page 4 pedestrinn Walkwanj -<,' • '[ w The second major topic discussed was pedestrian walkways . .Tce presented the results from the questior.l1.aire showing that the majority of respondents felt walkways were appropriate on busy streets and near schools. The results from .a related survey question showed that asphalt and concrete were favored as appropriate materials for wal~'a)'s. Mai!1tainabillly and cost were also identified as important factors in choosing a construction materiaL Joe 5'tressed that rnaincai.nability is also a very important issue from the City's point of vicw. Joe stated that the walkways, if constructed with concrete, would be tinted to match the adjacent rolled curb. It W~ .agreed that L'le final s.election between concrete a"',d asphalt as 2. walk\vay material could be made at the time a walkway is proposed for a specific street, hased upcn input from the affected residents. Joe proposed that slarldard conc:rele sidewalks be ... sed in Barron Park under the same circumstances established for the use of standard vertical curb and gutter (the transition from El camino properties and [0 flll in eXLsting gaps). The use of decomposed granite for a pedestrian walkway. due to the high CO.'its of maintenance, would be limited to lesser traveled areas. Los Robles Avenue frol11 L2 Donna Street 10 Laguna Avenue (over the Barron Creek box culvert) was identified as. a possible ana whcre a decomposed gr.rnite wall"'\llay could be appropriate. SUMMARY George reiterated that the Barron Park design guidelines, if approved b} the Finance Commiu",-,= and the Cit} Council, would be implemr.:nte.d over time as a part of other ongoing City improvement programs. George closed the meeting by thankmg the ;audiellC~ for (hcir input and by stating the people who attended this meeting, as ",'cll as the p;evlous two, would be sent a copy of the meeting minntes and notification of the date and Lime of the Finance Committee meeting. .. -